fC>A 


■  '■«  .....  ■'•'■■  =■.:■'■  •  '  •  ,  .  •:  .  *.  •  -  ’  ■■ 
......  ...  .  .«  «  ,  • 

.  •«  •  *  .  .  .  .  .  ■  *  * 

.  .  ■  ■  •  .  .  ’  .  .  *  . 

...  •  ♦  v  *•  •  .  .  •  *  •  *  •  '  .  '  .  .  •  •  ;  r  *». 

L  B.'(|  *;  i  “  •  '  ;  *.•_*  *•  *  *  |  «  ’  <tf 

r  ’  ’  ■  '  '  '*  *  ;  •  •  • ,  «  i  1  .  •  ' .  ‘  ?• 

. 


**  •  »  ■  .  ,  *  "  ' 

•  -  •  I  .*  ■  •  r  .  .  '  ’  .  •  ■  :  ■  . 

.  :  -  *  '  ■  ■:  f  . 

V:":--  ,  '  v  •■■■  .  "!•'  ■  : 

'  ■  -.V  ' 

'  ’  ;  •  V  '  ;  .  -  ■  • 

?  ••  ■  :  ■■ "  '  *  •  ■  ,  .  '  * 


'/  -  '  ■  '  »  .  •  ""  '  '  ■  -  '  1  *'  '  .  ••  •  '  -  ■  1 

«  i  v-  >  i  *•  \  »  .  • .  •  \ 

*  -y  M  .  J  *  .....  *  <  *  ~  -  „*>  »  •  , 

.  “  «Ç?  a'v  *  ,V-.  <•>:*’<.  4-  * 

v  *£;*4aV*V  Vi  •  ■' 

•  .  >  •  -  ;  -  •<  "1  *•  •♦,4  .«  ;v«  *•*  V  *  . 


:VV«  ..  ,1 


1  **  ”  .  W  ;  ■  .  r.  v  ...  •  ■  r  ••  ■  ■ 

«  *•**»•’•  v.  -  t.  .  _  ■  /  •  V  .  ».  -  ,  *  •  :  *  - 

*'  '  •  —  -  •  K  v  .f  :  •  :  ■  : 

*  'i  '.  1  '  . 

|  i  **k  '  4  4  *  ’  i  „  .  •  . 

».*♦  .  ,  »  .  .  ■*  •  .  '  ■  . .  • 


*•*?¥»! 


FROM  THE 


LIBRARY 


*. 


», 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE 


DEMOSTHENES. 


WITH  EXTRACTS  FROM  IIIS  ORATIONS,  AND  A  CRITICAL 
DISCUSSION  OF  THE  “  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN.” 


BY 

L.  BHÉDIF, 

FORMER  MEMBER  OF  THE  SUPERIOR  NORMAL  SCHOOL  OF  FRANCE,  DOCTOR  IN  THE 
FACULTY  OF  LETTERS  AT  PARIS,  PROFESSOR  IN  THE  FACULTY  OF  LETTERS 
AT  TOULOUSE.  RECTOR  OF  THE  CHAMBERY  ACADEMY, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  FRANCE,  ETC. 


TRANSLATED  BY 

M.  J.  MAC  MAHON,  A.M. 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL.  MASS. 


CHICAGO: 

S.  C.  GRIGGS  AND  COMPANY, 

1881. 


J  p  ^ 


Copyright,  1881, 

By  S.  C.  GRIGGS  &  COMPANY. 


204846 


I  XHIGHT  Si  LEONARD  I 


DONOHUE  &  HENNEBERRY,  BINDERS. 


\ 


TO 

HOK  GEORGE  H.  PAUL, 

OF  MILWAUKEE,  WIS., 

PRESIDENT  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS  OF  WISCONSIN 

UNIVERSITY, 

$ 

AS  A  TRIBUTE  OF  RESPECT  FOR  EMINENT  ABILITY  AND  OF 
GRATITUDE  FOR  VALUABLE  SERVICE  IN  BEHALF 
OF  PUBLIC  EDUCATION, 

THIS  VOLUME  IS 

RESPECTFULLY  INSCRIBED. 


\ 


TRANSLATOR’S  PREFACE. 


HE  author  of  this  work  has  devoted  twenty- two  years 


\ 


to  the  study  and  teaching  of  Ancient  Letters,  and 
has  particularly  studied  Demosthenes  and  his  contemporary 
orators.  If  this  were  the  only  recommendation  for  the 
appearance  of  “  Political  Eloquence  in  Greece  ”  in  the 
English  language,  it  would  not,  we  think,  be  a  slight  one; 
but  from  the  author's  comparative  study  of  ancient  and 
modern  eloquence,  from  his  exposition  of  the  passions,  in¬ 
centives  and  convictions  underlying  those  remarkable  out¬ 
bursts  of  eloquence  which  culminated  in  a  Demosthenes 
and  an  Æscliines,  in  a  Cicero  and  a  Cæsar,  in  a  Mirabeau 
and  a  Bossuet,  the  student  of  history,  oratory  and  philoso¬ 
phy  will  find  this  volume  instructive. 

“  To  animate  a  people  renowned  for  justice,  humanity 
and  valor,  yet  in  many  instances  degenerate  and  corrupted; 
to  warn  them  of  the  dangers  of  luxury,  treachery  and 
bribery;  of  the  ambition  and  perfidy  of  a  powerful  foreign 
enemy;  to  recall  the  glory  of  their  ancestors  to  their- 
thoughts,  and  to  inspire  them  with  resolution,  vigor  and 
unanimity  ;  to  correct  abuses,  to  restore  discipline,  to  revive 
and  enforce  the  generous  sentiments  of  patriotism  and  pub¬ 
lic  spirit,” — these  were  the  purposes  for  which  Demos¬ 
thenes  labored,  and  they  may  possibly  recommend  them¬ 
selves  to  the  orator,  the  statesman,  and  the  citizen  of  the 
nineteenth  century. 

To  the  classical  student  who  has  read  or  is  to  read  the 
Oration  on  the  Crown  and  the  Oration  Against  Ctesiplion , 


6  translator’s  preface. 

Chapter  XI  will  possess  a  particular  interest.  In  it  Pro¬ 
fessor  Brédif  has  drawn,  with  a  masterly  and  impartial 
pen,  a  picture  of  the  two  great  adversaries,  of  their  times 
and  their  acts,  their  abilities  and  their  failings,  their  rise 
and  their  fall. 

A  love  for  the  Greek  language  and  literature,  and  a 
strong  admiration  for  the  scholarly  manner  in  which  the 
author  has  treated  the  king  of  the  ancient  tribune,  might 
also  be  mentioned  as  incentives  which  induced  the  trans¬ 
lator  to  undertake  this  task.  That  the  work  is  free  from 
errors  and  worthy  of  the  admirable  original,  we  can  by 
no  means  vouchsafe.  So  vast  is  the  field  of  ancient  litera¬ 
ture  from  which  the  author  has  gathered  his  rich  mate¬ 
rial,  that  it  has  been  difficult  at  all  times  to  consult  the 

* 

original  texts.  Of  the  numerous  extracts  from  the  classical 
writers  of  antiquity,  we  have  translated  some  from  the 
original  Greek  and  Latin,  others  we  have  taken  directly 
from  the  author’s  faithful  version,  and  in  the  orations 
of  Demosthenes  and  Æschines  we  have  availed  ourselves 
of  the  excellent  translations  made  by  Dr.  Leland  and  Mr. 
Kennedy. 

The  special  thanks  of  the  translator  are  due:  first  to 
the  author  himself,  then  to  Major  Geo.  M.  McConnel,  of 
Chicago,  for  valuable  critical  assistance,  to  Alfred  Flinch, 
Ph.D.,  for  advice  on  the  last  chapters,  to  the  publishers 
and  printers  for  their  pains  to  issue  the  volume  in  its 
present  form,  and  to  many  friends  for  their  interest  in 
the  progress  of  the  work  and  for  their  appreciated  criti¬ 
cisms  and  suggestions. 

M.  J.  MacMahon. 

Chicago,  Illinois,  March  1881. 


AUTHOR’S  PREFACE. 


“rpHAT  which  distinguishes  man  from  the  lower  animals, 
-A-  and  the  Greek  from  the  Barbarian,  is  his  superiority 
of  intelligence  and  utterance.”  Isocrates  might  have  added 
that  the  best  use  to  which  speech  can  be  put  is  the  examina¬ 
tion  and  defense  of  civic  interests.  Political  eloquence  was 
one  of  the  essential  elements  and  one  of  the  least  disputed 
glories  of  Athenian  democracy.  We  cannot  attempt  to  study 
in  detail  its  various  developments. 

The  political  eloquence  of  Greece,  during  the  Persian  inva¬ 
sions  and  the  Peloponnesian  war,  left  no  original  monument 
of  itself.  It  has  been  necessary  to  trace  it  through  second¬ 
hand  productions, — sometimes  rendered  faithfully  enough  (as 
in  Thucydides),  but  all  rare  and  insufficient.  On  the  other 
hand,  during  the  forty  years  which  elapse  between  the  cap¬ 
ture  of  Athens  by  Lysander  and  the  appearance  of  Philip  on 
the  borders  of  Greece  (404-359  b.c.),  Attic  eloquence  is 
especially  judicial,  —  political  eloquence  merely  incidental. 
Hence,  while  profiting  by  the  writers  whose  recollections  of 
early  ages  illuminate,  in  a  general  manner,  the  history  of 
political  eloquence,  we  have  particularly  sketched  the  image 
of  that  eloquence  which  rendered  the  Macedonian  epoch  so 
illustrious.  Demosthenes  and  his  contemporaries  do  not 
constitute  the  entire  eloquence  of  Greece,  but  they  represent 
it  with  the  greatest  éclat  at  one  of  the  most  impressive 
moments  in  the  life  of  the  Greek  world. 

Two  great  personages  eclipse  all  others  in  the  middle  of 
the  fourth  century  of  Hellenic  history  (362-336  b.c.):  Philip 
and  Demosthenes.  They  and  the  Athenians  are  the  three 


8 


author’s  preface. 


actors  in  the  national  drama  unfolded  in  Greece.  We  have 
drawn  a  picture  of  the  Macedonian  king  and  the  city  against 
which  he  contended. 

In  regard  to  Demosthenes,  his  achievements  as  a  statesman 
and  as  an  orator  fill  and  animate  this  entire  work.  At  every 
moment  he  appears  upon  the  scene  as  an  actor  or  witness. 
Happy  would  it  be  if  the  reader  found  as  much  delight  in 
listening  to  his  eloquent  testimonies  as  the  heliasts  experi¬ 
enced  in  hearing  those  of  Homer  and  Solon,  Sophocles  and 
Euripides,  read  by  the  court  clerk.  We  have  thought  it 
possible  to  dwell  upon  the  judicial  eloquence  of  Athens  with¬ 
out  inconformity  to  the  title  of  this  work.  The  -functions  of 
advocate  and  political  orator  were  so  closely  interlaced  among 
the  ancients  that  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  separate 
them.  Private  interests  and  political  tendencies  incessantly 
commingled  in  the  cities  where  the  retired  and  private  man 
was  but  little  separated  from  the  active  citizen. 

Thus  the  bar  was  converted  into  a  political  arena.  The 
passions  which  agitated  the  assembled  people  might  also  move 
the  tribunal.  The  debates  presented  a  doubly  interesting 
spectacle  of  opponents  defending  their  life  or  their  honor, 
while  at  the  same  time  they  took  sides  on  affairs  of  state,  —  a 
public  deliberation  grafted  upon  a  duel.  Under  such  condi¬ 
tions,  it  is  not  surprising  to  hear  an  ex-consul,  the  prince  of 
the  political  rostrum  at  Rome,  assert  the  priority  of  judicial 
eloquence, —  the  most  difficult,  perhaps,  of  human  accomplish¬ 
ments,  but  also  the  grandest.*  A  political  trial  was  the 
origin  of  Cicero’s  masterpiece  in  oratory,  Oratio  pro  Milone. 

One  particular  cause  consolidated  the  union  of  deliberative 
and  judicial  functions  at  Athens:  public  administration  was 
extended  to  the  entire  people.  The  accorded  right,  not  to 
say  the  duty,  imposed  upon  every  citizen  of  investigating 

*  In  causarum  contentionibus  magnum  est  quoddam  opus,  atque 
baud  scio  an  de  humanis  operibus  longe  maximum.  (De  Oratore ,  ii, 
17.) 


author’s  preface. 


9 


political  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  favored  the  perpetual 
confusion  of  the  tribune  and  the  bar  by  inciting  accusations 
in  which  private  pique  was  too  often  armed  under  the  guise 
of  public  interests. 

The  only  three  orations  of  Æschines  which  remain  to  us 
are  three  political  speeches.  With  the  exception  of  the 
Philippics  and  the  Olynthiacs ,  the  finest  harangues  of  Demos¬ 
thenes*  are  composed  in  about  an  equal  measure  of  the 
deliberative  and  judicial  element.  Add  to  this  that  the 
Athenians  did  not  have  special  judges  for  special  cases. 
When  there  was  a  question  of  civil  claims  or  a  political 
debate,  the  tribunal  was  always  a  part,  more  or  less  respect¬ 
able,  of  the  Athenian  multitude, —  a  popular  audience,  whose 
minds  the  orator  ruled  and  whose  passions  he  swayed  by 
appropriate  arts.  Whence  among  the  Attics  the  affinity  of 
oratorical  customs  at  the  tribune  and  bar,  and  the  necessity, 
in  order  to  thoroughly  comprehend  the  political  orators  of 
Athens,  of  seeing  her  advocates  at  work. 

A  witness,  to  be  proof  against  suspicion,  should  neither 
be  a  partisan  nor  a  dependent  of  the  litigant.  To  these 
conditions  the  tribunal  of  Letters  might  add  another,  that 
of  not  being  his  translator  or  his  critic.  There  is  a  com¬ 
mon  inclination  to  become  over-zealous  in  our  admiration 
of  a  writer  whom  long  and  sympathetic  communion  has 
apparently  made  our  own;  the  exact  truth  sometimes  suffers 
from  this  excess  of  good  will.  Great  names  add  to  this 
interested  affection  a  prestige  which  favors  illusion.  Un¬ 
doubtedly,  one  should  not  speak  lightly  of  such  eminent 
personages;  but  if  respect  is  due  to  their  glory,  the  whole 
truth  is  due  to  the  reader.  We  believe  that  we  have  studied 
the  king  of  the  ancient  tribune  with  a  veneration  that  is 
free  from  partiality.  The  citizen,  the  statesman,  and  the 
orator  are  sufficiently  strong  in  him  to  sustain  the  re- 

*  Contra  Leptinein,  In  Midiam,  In  Aristocratem,  On  the  Affairs  of 
the  Chersonese ,  On  the  Embassy ,  and  On  the  Crown. 


1  )  author’s  preface. 

/  -  .pH 

proaches  which  the  man  and  the  polemic  did  not  always 
escape. 

Brébœuf  has  been  reproached  for  being  more  Lucian 
than  Lucian  himself  ( Lucano  Lucanior).  Many  an  inter¬ 
preter  of  Demosthenes,  undoubtedly  dissatisfied  with  his 
original  eloquence,  contributes  to  it  what  pleases  his  own 
taste.  Unfortunately  the  Attics  were  not  eloquent  in  the 
Gallic  view;  to  adorn  Demosthenes  amounts  to  parodying 
him;  to  make  him  bombastic,  does  not  render  him  more 
recognizable.  When  he  recounts  wrongs ,  the  translator, 
with  the  best  intention  imaginable,  denounces  crimes.  “  Rest 
in  repose,  confident  and  armed,”  becomes  “Await  without 
noise,  confidence  in  your  hearts,  and  your  sword  in  hand.” 
“I  will  speak  with  frankness,”  is  cold;  a  substitute  is  made: 
“  Nothing  will  enchain  my  tongue.”  These  scruples  are 
given  with  good  intention,  but  they  miss  the  mark.  For 
want  of  stones,  an  indiscreet  tenderness  throws  flowers  and 
metaphors  at  this  colossus.  The  greatest  service  which 
Demosthenes’  friends  can  render  him  is  to  refrain  from 
obliging  him  with  this  affectation.  Do  vou  wish  that  his 
beauty  should  enrapture?  Then  display  him  simply  as  he 
is.  You  will  thus  spare  him  the  “  calumnies  ”  of  which 
Addison  *  complained,  and  you  will  avert  from  yourself 
the  application  of  the  adage,  Traduttore ,  traditore.  The 
translator  should  be  the  prime  auxiliary  of  the  critic;  an 
ancient  orator  well  translated  has  his  commentaries  half 
written. 

During  long  years  devoted  to  secondary  and  higher  in¬ 
struction,  we  have  collected  from  the  study  of  ancient  liter¬ 
ature  rich  materials,  which  is  to-day  distributed  into  four¬ 
teen  different  courses.  We  offer  the  most  recent  of  these 
courses  to  the  public;  it  is  also  one  of  the  most  modern. 
May  it  be  hoped  that  this  conscientious  study  in  which  moral 

*  I  have  keen  traduced  in  French.  (The  French  word  meaning 
translated  is  traduit.) 


author’s  preface. 


11 


philosophy,  politics  and  literary  criticism  naturally  lend 
their  aid,  will  prepare  the  way  for  its  seniors  by  meriting 
the  indulgent  approbation  of  its  readers. 

Demetrius,  the  Phalerian,  said  of  eloquence  that  in  free 
states  it  is  like  the  sword  in  combat.  Well  organized  re¬ 
publics  should  know  no  other  civil  battle-field  than  that 
of  the  tribune  —  a  peaceful  and  fruitful  arena  where  the 
issue  is  joined  between  intelligence  and  intelligence  on  a 
common  ground  of  national  devotion. 

When  recalling  the  oratorical  and  sanguinary  conflicts 
of  the  patricians  and  plebeians,  at  periods  reputed  the  most 
flourishing  of  the  Roman  Republic,  the  author  of  the  Dia¬ 
logue  of  Orators  charges  eloquence  with  living  upon  sedi¬ 
tions.  Free  and  united  France  nurtures  eloquence  with 
better  aliments.  The  era  of  social  seditions  will  never  a^ain 

O 

interrupt  her,  and,  thanks  to  the  Constitution  which  has 
made  her  her  own  sovereign,  she  will  avoid  errors  which 
might  cause  her  to  launch  words  of  iron,  as  did  Athens 
and  Demosthenes,  against  foreign  enemies. 

Far  more  fortunate  in  our  day  is  the  mission  of  the 
French  forum.  In  profound  peace  its  sole  impulse  is  for 
good;  it  exhibits  with  pride  the  dearest  interests  of  the 
country  to  all  eyes.  Assisted  by  its  powerful  ally  the 
press,  it  has  become,  by  wise  considerations,  the  political 
preceptor  of  the  people;  and  by  the  dignity  of  its  sentiments 
it  nobly  maintains  the  proud  soul  of  France. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


Translator’s  Preface,  -  5-6 

Author’s  Preface,  -----  7-11 

CHAPTER  I. 

Introduction  —  The  Three  Ages  of  Attic  Eloquence,  15-51 

CHAPTER  II. 

v  '  ‘  ;  .  t  ■  ‘  ,  '*  . 

Philip  —  The  Athenians,  -  -  -  52-82 

CHAPTER  III. 

Demosthenes  —  The  Man  —  The  Citizen,  -  -  83-117 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Demosthenes  —  The  Statesman,  -  *•  118-166 

CHAPTER  Y. 

Analysis  of  the  Principal  Elements  and  Charac¬ 
teristics  of  Demosthenes’  Eloquence,  -  167-198 


CHAPTER  VI. 


Analysis  of  the  Principal  Elements  and  Charac¬ 
teristics  of  Demosthenes’  Eloquence  (con¬ 
tinued), 


199-263 


13 


14 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Oratorical  Contests  in  Political  Debates  at 

Athens,  -----  264-289 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Invective  in  Greek  Eloquence,  -  -  290-337 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Greek  Eloquence  in  the  Light  of  Truth  and 

Morality,  -----  338-371 

CHAPTER  X. 

I.  Demosthenes  as  a  Moralist  —  II.  Relations  of 
Justice  and  Politics1 — III.  Religious  Senti¬ 
ment  in  Demosthenes,  -  372-411 

•  * 

CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Trial  on  the  Crown,  -  -  -  412-464 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Conclusion,  -----  465-488 

Analytical  Table  of  Contents,  -  -  489 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

IN  the  seventeenth  century,  when  public  speaking 
was  restricted  principally  to  the  pulpit  and  bar, 
Fénelon  restored  the  omnipotence  of  Grecian  eloquence. 
To-day  our  assemblies  are  manifestly  unceremonious; 
they  exhibit  great  examples  of  the  efficiency  of  elo¬ 
quence,  but  still  they  are  far  from  those  triumphs 
familiar  to  Greek  antiquity.  And  so  we  can  share 
even  in  these  days  the  admiration  of  the  author  of  The 
Letter  to  the  Academy. 

Eloquence  will  never  exercise  over  us  the  sovereignty 
which  it  enjoyed  at  Athens.  This  is  attributable  to  the 
different  conditions  of  public  life  among  the  ancients  and 
moderns.  From  her  cradle  Greece  grew  up  and  waxed 
strong  in  the  warm  light  of  liberty.  As  long  as  her 
independence  lasted  she  breathed  the  public  life  of  the 
Pnyx  and  the  Agora.  In  the  popular  assemblies, 
where  the  nation  met  for  deliberation,  eloquence  was 
naturally  called  upon  to  play  an  important  rôle.  Polit¬ 
ical  discussions  took  place  in  the  open  air;  each  delib¬ 
eration  was  like  a  drama  played  by  a  thousand  actors, 
whose  passions  and  votes  depended  on  the  master  of 
the  tribune.  In  the  midst  of  democratic  cities,  justly 
jealous  of  governing  themselves  and  examining  care- 

15 


16 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


fully  their  own  affairs,  u  all  could  do  everything.”* 
The  majority  decided  without  appeal  most  important 
questions:  the  choice  of  alliances,  peace  or  war,  the 
life  or  death  of  the  vanquished.  44 In  a  democratic 
state”  says  Æschines,  u  the  private  individual  is  a 
king  by  right  of  law  and  suffrage” f  Sometimes  a 
great  citizen  appears  to  he  king  of  a  city;  but  this 
fragile  royalty  dej)ends  upon  the  favor  of  the  people: 
the  people  have  instituted  it,  and  the  people  at  their 
will  overthrow  it,  according  to  the  impulse  of  the  mo¬ 
ment.  What  ally  will  aid  the  statesman  in  preserving 
the  confidence  of  the  city  whose  will  he  must  obey? — 
Eloquence.  In  former  times,  says  Aristotle,  J  the 
usurpers  to  whom  the  citizens  submitted  were  generals. 
For  then  the  sword  was  more  skillfully  handled,  and 
was  more  powerful  than  speech  ;  4  4  but  in  our  days, 
thanks  to  the  progress  of  eloquence,  the  faculty  of 
speaking  well  will  suffice  to  place  a  man  at  the  head  of 
the  people.  Orators  are  not  usurpers  on  account  of 
their  ignorance  of  military  art,  or  at  least  such  an 
occurrence  is  very  rare.”  Thus  among  the  Greeks  the 
multitude  was  master  of  everything,  and  oratory  was 
master  of  the  multitude. 

This  power  of  eloquence  produced  surprising  effects. 
The  Athenian  army  falls  into  the  hands  of  the  victori¬ 
ous  Sicilians.  Diodes,  a  favorite  orator,  advises  the 
Sicilians  to  kill  the  generals,  to  sell  or  throw  the  sol¬ 
diers  into  prison.  The  Sicilians  applaud  these  vigorous 
measures.  A  citizen,  Nicolaus  (although  the  war  has 
deprived  him  of  his  two  sons)  exhorts  the  victors  to 

*  Tacitus,  Dialogue  of  Orators,  40. 

t  ’ E>  -oAsc  drjfjLOxpaTou/JLêyfl  cvjgp  lot  dirge;  vo/ioj  za)  (pg<f(p  ftaat- 
husc.  ( Against  Ctesiphon). 

X  Politics ,  viii,  4. 


INTRODUCTION. 


17 


clemency.  The  people  are  touched,  and  are  about  to 
pardon  them.  Gylippus,  a  Spartan  general,  alarmed 
at  this  impolitic  weakness,  speaks  in  his  turn:  the  mul¬ 
titude  is  exasperated,  and  votes  the  punishment.  * 
Once,  at  Athens,  the  Mityleneans,  having  revolted, 
were  condemned  to  death  in  mass  by  the  advice  of 
Cleon.  The  next  day  Diodotus  made  the  people  blush 
at  such  thoughtless  barbarity,  and  the  Mityleneans 
were  spared,  f  Eloquence  also  reigned  in  the  Amphict¬ 
yonie  assemblies:  a  council  of  the  states  general  of 
Greece,  in  which  the  interests,  as  well  as  the  political 
and  religious  debates  of  the  Hellenic  family  were  dis¬ 
cussed.  Thus  public  speaking  was  the  main-spring  of 
Greek  society. 

From  its  origin  eloquence  flourished  in  Greece  with¬ 
out  effort  or  study,  as  if  on  a  soil  best  adapted  to  it. 
This  spontaneity  sprang  from  qualities  indigenous  to 
the  Hellenic  race:  customs  and  institutions  nourished 
and  bore  it  into  full  maturity.  Sensibility,  lively  im¬ 
agination,  flexible  and  delicate  organs,  electric  sympa¬ 
thies, —  nothing  prevented  the  Hellenes  from  acquiring 
the  gift  of  speech  without  seeking  it.  The  Grecian 
was  born  an  orator  (pyjzwp^  and  the  social  center  in 
which  he  lived,  since  the  heroic  age,  compelled  him  to 
provide  himself  with  convincing  and  persuasive  power. 
In  his  Théâtre  des  rhéteurs  Father  Cressolius,  of  the 
.  Society  of  Jesus,  quotes  a  verse  of  the  Odyssey  (xix, 
179)  to  trace  the  art  of  oratory,  not  to  the  deluge  of 
Deucalion,  but  anterior  to  it:  to  Deucalion’s  father, 
Minos,  who  was  converted  into  a  profound  sage  and 
consummate  reasoner  by  lessons  drawn  from  conversa¬ 
tions  with  Jupiter.  Without  tracing  it  so  far  back,  the 

*  Diodorus  Siculus,  xiii,  19  et  seq. 
f  Thucydides,  iii,  35  et  seq. 

1* 


18 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


ingenious  scholar  might  have  been  satisfied  with  the 
story  of  Peleus  confiding  Achilles  to  Phoenix  that  he 
might  learn  how  u  to  speak  and  to  act  or  with  those 
verses  of  the  Iliad  which  describe  the  oratorical  con¬ 
tests  with  which  the  Achæan  youth  diverted  the  assem¬ 
blies.*  This  twofold  influence  of  natural  gifts  and 
customs  appears  manifest  in  Homer.  Heroic  feudalism 
discloses  democratic  inclinations  in  which  the  future 
institutions  of  popular  government  are  foreshadowed. 
The  counsel-bearing  (PouXrjyôpot)  orators  are  but  har¬ 
bingers  of  the  ordinary  counsellors  and  ministers  of 
Athens;  even  then  we  behold  in  Thersites  the  dawn  of 
demagogism.  The  council  of  chiefs  ( f3aatXeU. r)  deliber¬ 
ating  upon  public  interests,  and  the  assembly  of  the 
people  open  to  eloquence  a  vaster  field  on  which 

glories  equal  to  those  of  the  battle-field  are  acquired; 
the  whole  is  but  a  representation  of  the  assemblies  of 
the  gods  on  Olympus,  when  they  harangue  one  another 
in  the  hope  of  effecting  a  better  understanding.  Achil¬ 
les  is  the  first  hero  of  the  Iliad;  Ulysses  is  the  next 
in  rank.  The  lance  of  Thetis’  son  is  most  effective  in 
combat;  the  oratory  of  Sisyphus’  son  is  most  effective 
in  council. f  An  irresistible  orator,  his  voice  is  power¬ 
ful,  his  concise  and  weighty  sentences  demolish  and 
sweep  all  before  them  like  a  torrent.  He  has  well 
shown  how  eloquence,  like  Achilles’  javelin,  can  cure 
the  evils  which  it  has  inflicted.  £  Outside  of  political 
life  what  a  part  eloquence  is  made  to  play  in  the  drama 

*  Uiacl,  ix,  443;  xv,  283. 

f  Iliad,  ix,  441  ;  iii,  221  ;  Odyssey,  xiii,  297  ;  ix,  441. 

X  The  second  book  of  the  Iliad  affords  a  memorable  example  of 
this  (verse  144  et  seq.)  Agamemnon  wishes  to  test  the  army;  he 
advises  it  to  return  home.  His  discourse,  more  persuasive  than  even 
the  orator  himself  had  anticipated,  is  too  effective  ;  the  Acliæans  rush 


INTRODUCTION. 


19 


of  the  Iliad,  teeming  with  sudden  passion  to'  be  ex¬ 
haled,  with  impetuosities  to  be  governed,  resistances  to 
be  overcome!  If  the  immortals  laugh  to  their  hearts’ 
content,  the  kings  below  rival  them  in  cursing  each 
other.  With  great  difficulty  Nestor  calms  the  tumults 
of  this  stormy  parliament.  At  one  moment  the  stub¬ 
born  wrath  of  Achilles  draws  forth  the  most  eloquent 
supplications;  at  another  old  Priam’s  tears  moisten  the 
crimsoned  hands  of  his  last  son;  in  still  another  place 
the  tenderness  of  Andromache  would  disarm  the  rash 
valor  of  her  husband:  all  pathetic  inspirations  which 
tragedy  and  eloquence  have  never  surpassed. 

The  power  of  public*  speaking  and  its  important 
office  in  Homeric  times  explain  the  care  with  which 
the  poet  has  drawn  the  characters  and  even  the  atti¬ 
tudes  of  his  orators.*  It  also  bears  witness  to  these 
significant  verses: 

“With  partial  hands  the  gods  their  gifts  dispense; 

Some  greatly  think,  some  speak  with  manly  sense; 
Here  Heaven  an  elegance  of  form  denies, 

But  wisdom  the  defect  of  form  supplies: 

This  man  with  energy  of  thought  controls, 

And  steals  with  modest  violence  our  souls; 

He  speaks  reserv’diy,  but  he  speaks  with  force, 

Nor  can  one  word  be  changed  but  for  a  worse; 

In  public  more  than  mortal  he  appears, 

And,  as  he  moves,  the  gazing  crowd  reveres.”! 

to  their  boats  with  joyful  shouts.  Ulysses  intervenes  opportunely, 
and  prevents  the  execution  of  Agamemnon’s  test,  which  proved  too 
successful. 

“  He  said.  The  shores  with  loud  applauses  sound, 

The  hollow  ships  each  deaf ning  shout  rebound.” 

*  Iliad,  iii,  209. 

f  Odyssey,  viii,  1G7.  This  apotheosis  of  eloquence  is  found  in  De 
Oratore ,  iii,  14.  The  eulogy  of  oratory  was  natural  to  a  poet  of  whom 


20 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


The  power  and  necessity  of  eloquence  increased  in 
proportion  as  the  spirit  of  aristocratic  feudalism  in  the 
early  ages  gave  place  to  democratic  institutions,  and 
consequently,  that  Greek  race  which  became  the  most 
warmly  attached  to  free  government  was  destined  to 
behold  the  art  of  eloquence  flourishing  most  vigorously 
in  it. 

This  was  the  peculiar  privilege  of  the  Ionic  family 
established  in  Attica,  and  became  the  treasure  of 
Athens. 

The  ancients  were  unanimous  in  rendering  to  her 
this  testimony:  u  The  taste  for  eloquence  was  not 
common  to  all  Greece,  but  it  was  the  exclusive  attri¬ 
bute  of  Athens.  In  verity,  who  knows  any  orator  of 
Argos,  of  Corinth,  or  of  Thebes,  during  this  epoch  ? 
As  to  Lacedaemon,  I  have  never  heard  it  stated  that 
up  to  our  days  she  produced  a  single  one.”* 

A  Lacedaemonian  system  of  rhetoric,  like  that  of  the 
Stoics,  would  have  taught  the  art  of  silence.  Could 
this  singular  faculty  be  peculiar  to  the  very  atmos¬ 
phere  of  Attica,  and  an  omen  of  some  mysterious  link 
between  the  nature  of  the  soil  and  the  genius  of  its 
people  ?  u  Scarcely  issued  from  the  Piraeus,  eloquence 
sped  over  all  the  Grecian  isles  and  spread  throughout 
Asia;  but,  adulterated  by  foreign  customs,  it  lost  the 
pure  and  wholesome  diction  it  brought  from  Attica, 

Quintilian  could  say:  “Rivers  and  fountains  find  their  source  in  the 
ocean,  thus  Homer  is  the  father  and  model  of  all  kinds  of  eloquence.” 

*  Brutus,  13.  Brasidas,  however,  was  not  deficient  in  eloquence, 
“  for  a  Lacedæmonian.”  Thucydides  iv,  84.  The  Spartans  gen¬ 
erally  mention  Menelaus.  Iliad,  iii,  213. 

“When  Atreus’  son  harangued  the  listening  train, 

Just  was  his  sense,  and  his  expression  plain, 

Ilis  words  succinct,  yet  full,  without  a  fault; 

He  spoke  no  more  than  just  the  thing  he  ought.” 


INTRODUCTION. 


21 


and  nearly  forgot  its  mother  idiom.5’  Eloquence  in 
the  East,  even  at  Rhodes,  divested  itself  of  those  quali¬ 
ties  drawn  from  its  natal  soil,  and  Athens  remained 
the  privileged  abode,  the  classical  ground  of  oratorical 
talent. 

This  predilection  on  the  part  of  eloquence  for  the 
city  of  Minerva  is  explained  by  the  nature  of  Athenian 
institutions.  In  Rome  the  patricians  were  not  satisfied 
with  having  laid  hands  upon  history  which  had  been 
converted  from  the  first  into  a  pontifical  code  and  par¬ 
tial  guardian  of  the  renown  and  privileges  of  their 
order,  but  they  reserved  to  themselves  the  monopoly 
of  legal  knowledge  and  the  forms  of  court  procedure; 
so  that  when  prosecuted,  a  plebeian  client  was  at  the 
mercy  of  his  patron.  At  Athens  there  existed  nothing 
like  this  pernicious  guardianship.  The  law  of  Solon 
whiled  that  every  citizen  should  be  as  competent  to 
defend  his  rights  by  speech  as  by  arms  on  the  field  of 
battle.  The  law  enjoined  upon  him  that  he  should 
create,  by  the  practice  of  public  speaking,  a  new  guar¬ 
antee  of  his  independence, —  a  pledge  and  warrant  of 
his  dignity.  “If  incapacity  to  defend  one’s  person  is 
shameful,  it  would  be  strange  if  the  inability  to  defend 
one’s  self  with  speech  were  not  equally  so,  for  speech 
is  befitting  a  man  much  more  than  corporal  qualities.”* 

Imbued  with  this  spirit  of  democratic  liberty  and 
strong  personality,  the  constitution  of  Solon  gave  to 
political  life  and  open  speech  an  impulse  which  the 
authority  of  the  Pisistratidæ  might  weaken  but  could 
not  arrest.  The  four  qualified  classes  established  by 
the  legislator  constituted  the  assembly  of  the  people, 
and  furnished  the  tribunals  with  judges  or  heliasts. 
Thus  all  citizens,  rich  and  poor,  were  admitted  with 

*  Aristotle,  Ilhetor'ic,  i,  1. 


22 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


the  arclions  and  areopagus  to  share  the  sovereignty 
and  to  scrutinize  public  affairs.  Persons  of  importance 
were  obliged  to  give  their  logical  advice  in  these 
assemblies.  On  opening  the  sessions  a  herald  de¬ 
manded,  in  a  loud  voice,  u  Who  of  the  citizens  above 
the  age  of  fifty  years  will  address  the  assembly?  ”  The 
u most  virtuous  and  sage”  obligation  of  fifty  years, 
regretted  by  _/Escliines,*  soon  fell  into  disuse,  and  the 
right  of  all  to  mingle  in  public  matters  before  the  tri¬ 
bunal  was  developed  every  day  along  with  the  progress 
of  liberty  and  the  aggrandisement  of  the  state,  f 

The  democratic^  reforms  introduced  into  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  Solon  by  Clisthenes,  chief  of  the  Alcme- 
onidæ,  after  the  final  expulsion  of  the  Pisistratidæ, 
impressed  upon  the  political  activity  of  Athens  a  de¬ 
cided  impulse,  which  exalted  the  conceptions  of  her 
citizens  and  the  mission  of  eloquence.  From  that  time 
freedom  rendered  Athens  capable  of  conceiving  and  of 
executing  great  things,  as  well  as  of  transmitting  them 

*  Against  Gtesiphon. 

f  “  The  laws  instruct  the  orator  and  the  strategus ,  who  wish  to  be  held 
in  good  repute  with  the  people,  to  have  children  conformably  to  the 
law,  to  possess  real  estate  in  the  territory,  and  to  merely  direct  the 
people  after  having  given  all  legitimate  pledges.”  (Dinarclius,  Against 
Demosthenes.)  Plutarch  (On  the  Love  of  Children)  attributes  to  Lycurgus 
and  Solon  a  law  against  bachelors,  which  was  in  force  at  Sparta,  but 
the  Attic  orators  have  not  left  in  their  works  a  trace  of  its  application 
at  Athens.  This  obligation  of  being  married,  father  and  proprietor, 
conditions  formerly  exacted  by  the  theorists  of  a  civilized  country, 
but  poorly  conforms  to  the  spirit  of  tolerant  liberty  in  Athens,  and 
the  indulgent  ease  of  its  manners.  Bachelors  might  there  be  of 
little  importance,  even  ridiculed.  Upon  their  tomb  was  placed  a 
particular  figure, — that  of  the  lourpo<popo<;  ;  but  the  law  respected 
toward  them  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  equal  rights  of  all 
citizens. 

X  Aristotle,  Politics,  iii,  1;  viii,  2. 


INTRODUCTION. 


23 


to  posterity  in  standard  literature.*  Fame  and  honor 
were  more  than  ever  assured;  not  to  the  most  noble 
and  opulent,  but  to  those  most  capable  of  persuasive 
appeals.  The  magistrates  became  responsible  to  the 
people,  and  appeared  before  their  tribunal.  Their  ren¬ 
dition  of  accounts  initiated  the  people  in  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  government  and  jurisprudence,  and  familiar¬ 
ized  them  with  contradictory  debates.  The  Athenians 
from  that  moment  knew  no  other  school  than  the 
Pnyx.  It  was  indeed  the  best  school,  and  by  far  the 
best. 

The  Median  wars,  in  this  respect  as  in  many  others, 
aroused  Athens  to  action.  The  evils  of  foreign  inva¬ 
sions  are  sometimes  compensated  by  the  benefits  which 
an  enemy  unconsciously  brings  with  the  invasion.  To 
the  passion  of  the  Persian  kings  for  conquest  Athens 
(not  to  mention  the  immediate  union  of  nearly  the  en¬ 
tire  Hellenic  family)  owed  the  subsidence  of  its  domes¬ 
tic  rivalries,  and  a  maritime  supremacy  destined  to 
remain  its  characteristic  and  dominant  power.  Hence¬ 
forward  she  could  intone  her  Rule  Britannia,  Britannia 
rules  the  waves /j*  her  maritime  vocation  was  fixed;  the 
democratic  movement  springing  suddenly  from  the  mix¬ 
ture  of  all  classes  on  the  ships,  a  last  and  fragile  hope 
of  the  commonwealth;  the  recurrent  outgrowth  of  that 
sentiment  of  equality  so  active  at  all  times  among  the 
Athenians,  and  still  more  quickened  by  common  trials 
and  victories;  the  expansion  of  the  authority  of  Athens, 
now  at  the  head  of  the  hegemony  by  right  of  moral 
conquest,  and  the  political  and  intellectual  focus  of  the 
Hellenic  world;  this  meritorious  exaltation  of  the 

*  Herodotus,  v,  78,  91.  G  rote's  History  of  Greece ,  iv,  107  ;  v,  358. 

f  Tins  is  the  y.w~aç  avaaatnv  (the  royalty  of  the  oar)  of  Euripides; 
Aristotle,  Rhetoric ,  iii,  2.  Le  trident  de  Neptune  est  le  sceptre  du  monde. 


24 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


land  of  Miltiades,  Themistocles,  Cimon,  and  tlieir  com¬ 
peers,  communicated  animation  to  the  genius  of  Athens, 
and  prepared  her  for  the  age  of  Pericles. 

Thereafter  the  constitution  of  Clisthenes,  which  had 
been  in  vogue  for  nearly  thirty  years,  had  to  be  enlarged. 
Of  the  four  classes  established  by  Solon,  and  recog¬ 
nized  by  Clisthenes,  the  first  three  alone  had  access  to 
the  magistracies.  The  force  of  the  democratic  current 
was  such,  after  the  expulsion  of  the  barbarians,  that 
Aristides,  a  man  little  suspected  of  demagogism,  was 
the  first  to  propose  extending  the  eligibility  to  all  citi¬ 
zens.  This  recognition  of  equal  rights  was  consecrated 
by  the  adoption  of  the  custom  of  drawing  lots  for  all 
posts  save  that  of  strategus.  All  Athenians,  after 
honorably  passing  the  examination  of  the  dokimcisia , 
a  preliminary  inquiry  into  their  morality  and  capacity, 
could  be  summoned  by  the  impartial  bean  to  the  high¬ 
est  dignities:  to  the  archonship  and  senatorship.* 

*  The  drawing  of  lots,  ridiculed  by  Socrates  ( Memorabilia ,  i,  2), 
is,  in  Aristotle’s  ej^es,  the  essential  character  of  popular  government. 
In  a  democratic  state  “  all  citzens  ought  to  be  electors  and  eligible  to 
every  office;  all  ought  to  command  each,  and  each  all  in  turn.  All 
offices  ought  to  be  assigned  by  lot,  or  at  least  all  that  require  neither 
experience  nor  special  talent.”  [Politics,  viii,  1.)  Montesquieu  is  also 
favorable  to  this  method  of  appointment.  “  Suffrage  by  lot  is  natural 
to  democracy;  suffrage  by  choice  is  characteristic  of  aristocracy. 
The  lot  is  a  mode  of  election  which  affects  no  one;  it  leaves  a  reason¬ 
able  expectation  to  every  citizen.”  ( Esprit  des  Lois,  ii,  2.)  This 
equalizing  procedure  cuts  out  more  than  one  abuse  by  the  roots;  it 
simplifies  in  a  wonderful  manner  the  electoral  law.  Republican 
Rome,  armed  for  all  emergencies  and  weak  against  intrigue;  imperial 
Rome,  with  her  official  candidates,  might  often  envy  Athens  her  can¬ 
didates  of  chance.  “At  Heræum  the  usual  way  of  election  was 
abandoned  for  that  of  the  lot;  election  had  placed  in  power  only  in¬ 
triguers.”  ( Politics ,  viii,  2).  Perfection  is  ignorant  of  human  things; 
even  in  Athens  fraud  found  place.  Euxitheus,  a  client  of  Demosthe¬ 
nes  complains  of  the  electorial  operation,  which  excluded  him  from 


INTRODUCTION. 


25 


This  reform,  so  favorable  to  the  extension  of  popular 
government,  was  equally  so  to  eloquence.  It  enforced 
the  practice  of  .public  speaking  by  all  classes  of  citi¬ 
zens,  even  that  mob  of  sailors  (according  to  a  rather 
scornful  phrase  of  Aristotle)  which  had  saved  the  state 
at  Salamis,  and  had  placed  the  democracy  on  founda¬ 
tions  indestructible  by  any  power  except  democracy 
it  self  A 

One  of  the  most  important  public  functions  in  Ath¬ 
ens,  although  without  any  administrative  character  or 
special  power,  was  that  of  orator.  The  orators  of 
Athens  were  ministers,  without  governmental  depart¬ 
ments.  Now  these  ministers,  neither  elected  nor 

liis  canton.  “We  were  in  the  darkness  ;  Eubulides  supplied  each  of 
his  accomplices  with  two  or  three  ballots.  *  *  *  There  were  not  more 
than  thirty  voters,  and  the  number  of  votes  in  the  urn  exceeded  sixty. 
Judge  of  our  astonishment!  ”  ( Against  Eubulides.) 

*  This  democratic  expansion,  according  to  Aristotle,  was  not  ex¬ 
empt  from  dangers.  It  destroyed  the  wise  equilibrium  of  Solon’s  in¬ 
stitutions.  Hitherto  the  people  had  “  neither  been  slavish  nor  hostile.” 
Salamis  gave  them  a  pride  which  they  abused.  The  sailors  of  the 
Piræus,  warmer  democrats  than  the  inhabitants  of  the  city,  were 
undisciplined,  and  rebelled  against  the  police  of  a  well  organized 
state.  ( Politics ,  ii,  9;  iv,  5;  viii,  3.)  According  to  Montesquieu  {Es¬ 
prit  des  Lois ,  viii,  4),  “Salamis  corrupted  the  Athenian  republic”;  a 
disputable  estimation,  but  at  all  events  more  acceptable  than  Plato’s 
paradox.  This  philosopher  {Laws,  book  iv)  has  only  virtue  in 
view,  and  he  declares  that  the  battles  of  Marathon  and  Platæa  alone 
saved  Greece;  Salamis  and  Artemisium  were  injurious  to  her.  “  The 
most  important  point  for  men  is  not,  as  the  majority  imagine,  to  save 
their  lives  and  simply  exist,  but  to  become  as  virtuous  as  possible, 
and  remain  so  as  long  as  they  live.”  The  practical  sense  of  Aristotle 
warranted  him  in  these  extreme  speculations.  Plato  places  a  low 
estimate  on  the  pilots,  captains,  and  oarsmen  themselves;  crowds 
gathered  together  from  one  place  or  another  who  are  of  little  import¬ 
ance.  But  was  this  a  sufficient  reason  to  regret  victories  which  pre¬ 
served  the  life  if  not  the  ancient  valor  of  the  Hellenic  world? 

Primo  vivere ,  delude  philosophari. 


2 


26 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


drawn  by  lot,  but  indebted  for  their  investitures  to 
themselves,  and  constituting  themselves  counsellors  of 
the  people  by  dint  of  their  ambition  or  talent,  were  far 
from  descending  as  a  whole  from  families  of  the  Eupa- 
tridæ.  Cleon  was  a  currier,  Hyperbolus  a  lamp- 
maker,  Cleophon  a  lyre-maker,  Encrâtes  a  junk-seller, 
Lysicles  a  cattle-drover,  Isocrates  was  the  son  of  a  lute- 
maker,  Demosthenes  of  an  armorer,  Iphicrates  of  a 
shoe-maker,  Pytheas  of  a  miller,  JEschines  a  school¬ 
master’s  assistant;  Demades,  the  son  of  a  common 
sailor,  was  at  first  a  sailor  himself.  The  participation 
by  the  most  modest  artisans  in  the  government  of  Ath¬ 
ens  should  inspire  neither  surprise  nor  distrust.  The 
offices  do  not  seem  to  have  been  the  worse  filled  for  all 
this.  “  In  despotic  governments,  where  they  abuse 
equally  honor,  position  and  rank,  a  prince  becomes  a 
blackguard,  and  a  blackguard  a  prince,  indifferently.”* 
There  were  no  blackguards  nor  fools  at  Athens.  The 
level  of  intellectual  culture  was  more  uniform  in  Gre¬ 
cian  cities  than  it  is  to-day  in  our  modern  communi¬ 
ties;  and  the  Athenians  especially,  gifted  with  most 
various  aptitudes,  were  fitted  for  everything,  f  Ho 
one  was  astonished  at  seeing  a  courier  (Diodorus) 
charged  with  an  embassy,  a  comedian  (Aristophanes) 
a  diplomate,  a  shoemaker  a  publicist,  (Simon,  Socrates’ 
friend;):).  Let  us  leave  historians  and  comic  poets  to 
become  the  echoes  of  aristocratic  malice,  and  to  rail  at 

*  Esprit  des  Lois ,  v,  19. 

f  Their  liveliness,  eorpa-eXta,  permitted  them  to  do  everything 
“with  grace,”  giro.  yapixunj,  without  even  being  obliged  to  exert 
their  talent.  (Thucydides,  ii,  41.)  The  sophist  Hippias  is  a  curious 
type  in  this  respect  (Plato,  Second  Hippias).  Cf.  Juvenal,  satire  iii,  74. 

t  Simon  composed  a  political  treatise  On  the  Late;  another  On 
Demagogism. 


INTRODUCTION. 


27 


these  orators  and  statesmen  “who  were  brought  up  on 
the  public  market.”  The  constitution  which  permitted 
the  various  strata  of  society  to  unite  in  a  single  one, 
and  gave  the  humblest  the  right  to  raise  himself  to  the 
head  of  the  government  by  the  ascendency  of  his  merit 
or  eloquence,  was  certainly  most  favorable,  not  only  to 
the  cultivation  of  eloquence,  but  to  the  expansion  of 
individual  energies, —  the  real  strength  of  a  state.  “In 
war  a  narrow  ditch  will  break  a  phalanx;  in  the  state 
the  least  line  of  demarkation  (contrary  to  the  fusion  of 
classes)  may  breed  discord.  ”*  Athens  leveled  the  polit¬ 
ical  ground,  and  filled  up  the  pits  into  which  peace 
sometimes  stumbles. 

Pericles  and  Ephialtes  completed  the  work  of  Solon, 
Clisthenes  and  Salamines.  They  reorganized  the  courts 
of  justice  ( dicasteria )  upon  an  enlarged  basis,  and,  as 
Amvot  says,  “they  arranged  themselves  in  line  with 
the  popular  mass,  preferring  a  multitude  of  poor  com¬ 
moners  to  a  small  number  of  the  noble  and  opulent.” 
The  archons  and  the  areopagus,  formerly  vested  with 
judicial  power,  both  civil  and  criminal,  were  almost 
entirely  deprived  of  it  in  favor  of  the  popular  tribunals, 
where  jurors  drawn  by  lot  wTere  impaneled  to  the  num¬ 
ber  of  six  thousand  per  annum.  The  assiduous  dis¬ 
charge  of  political  duties  demands  .rest  and  relaxation. 
The  judges  receive  a  daily  stipend  of  two  oboles,  after¬ 
ward  increased  by  Cleonf  to  three.  This  was  a  means 
of  attracting  the  poorer  classes  to  the  tribunals,  and  of 
making  democratic  influences  prevail  there.  The  di¬ 
castes  not  only  had  to  decide  on  questions  of  fact,  like 
modern  jurors,  but  to  settle  questions  of  law.  And 

*  Aristotle,  Politics ,  viii,  3. 

f  For  the  political  consideration  of  three  oboles  (about  nine  cents). 
Cf.  Aristotle,  Politics ,  ii,  9;  vi,  10. 


28 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


we  can  easily  imagine  liow  numerous  these  questions 
were  in  a  city,  chosen,  ever  since  My  cale,  director  of 
the  confederation  of  Delos,  and  abundantly  provided 
with  the  manifold  interests  of  her  subjects  and  allies. 
Is  it  surprising  that  Athens,  thus  transformed  into  a 
court  of  justice  for  Ionic  Greece  and  the  islands,  should 
become  the  radiating  point  of  eloquence,  and  as  it 
were  an  immense  bazaar  richly  stocked  with  ideas  and 
expressions  \  * 

In  this  respect  natural  dispositions  had  singularly 
aided  the  institutions.  Pericles  extols  the  Athenians 
for  not  believing,  as  did  the  Spartans,  that  public  dis¬ 
cussions  enfeeble  action. f  In  a  panegyric  on  Athens 
before  the  tombs  of  warriors  who  had  fallen  for  their 
country,  the  grave  orator  could  not  use  the  license  of 
Cleon.  This  favorite  of  the  people  reproves  them  un¬ 
sparingly.  He  does  not  call  his  auditors  (jobe-mouches 
(gawks),  with  the  recklessness  of  Aristophanes,  but  he 
advances  the  strong  reprimands  of  the  Philippics.  The 
Athenians,  subtle  wranglers,  voluntarily  exhibited  their 
adroitness  in  oratorical  jousts:  “governed  by  whatever 
tickles  your  ears,  you  resemble  spectators  seated  to 
hear  sophists  rather  than  citizens  deliberating  on  state 
interests.”;}:  Cleon  points  out  the  superabundance  of 
their  gifts,  but  he  gives  us  a  glimpse  at  the  cost  of 
these  very  qualities.  The  Athenians,  vivacious  and 
impressive,  are  naturally  fluent  and  very  sensitive  to 
oratorical  beauties.  They  are  born  for  oratory,  and 
they  permit  themselves  to  be  carried  away  by  it. 

We  have  followed  the  correlative  progress  of  the 
constitution  and  the  *  eloquence  of  Athens;  then  de¬ 
scribed  the  resources  that  were  ‘found  in  the  native 


*  'E/ixopta  Xôyœv.  f  Thucydides,  ii,  40.  f  Ibid,  iii,  37,  38. 


INTRODUCTION. 


29 


institutions  and  dispositions.  The  time  has  come  to 
determine  the  transformation  of  spoken  eloquence, 
not  as  jet  a  literature,  into  written  and  scholarly  elo¬ 
quence,  and  the  developments  which  the  art  of  rheto¬ 
ricians  and  logograpliers  effected. 

During  several  centuries  after  the  Homeric  age  prose 
was  merely  used  as  an  instrument  in  the  social  rela¬ 
tions  of  the  Greeks,  hut  did  not  succeed  in  supplanting 
poetry  as  a  literary  language.  On  this  account  elo¬ 
quence  is  first  and  solely  found  in  the  poets.  At  the 
time  of  the  first  historians  of  the  fifth  century  (Ileca- 
tæus  of  Miletus),  prose  in  turn  rose  to  the  dignity  of 
a  scientific  and  literary  element.  In  like  manner  elo¬ 
quence  was  at  first  employed  artlessly  and  without 
oratorical  devices,  as  a  natural  instrument  of  defense 
and  attack  amid  the  various  occurrences  of  civil  and 
political  life  in  Greece;  then  as  an  art,  wisely  prac¬ 
tised  with  a  just  conception  of  its  elements,  its  rules, 
and  its  effects.  Undoubtedly  eloquence  had  represen¬ 
tatives  previous  to  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century, 
but  it  awaited  its  masters  until  the  age  of  Pericles. 
Although  practiced  for  a  long  time  before  that  epoch, 
it  was  cultivated  and  taught  only  then.  After  the 
Median  wars,  and  during  the  Peloponnesian  war,  rheto¬ 
ric  became  allied  to  eloquence;  sophistry  aided  and 
sometimes  corrupted  it.  In  the  Macedonian  period, 
provided  expressly  for  passion  and  action  with  the 
arms  accumulated  in  her  arsenal  for  past  ages,  she 
sent  forth  her  most  magnificent  masterpieces. 

Thus  three  principal  ages  are  unfolded.  The  first 
is  that  of  ancient  political  eloquence  with  Aristides, 
Themistocles,  and  Pericles;  the  second  shows  us  this 
art  for  awhile  in  the  hands  of  Pericles’  successors, 
not,  it  is  true,  irreproachable  statesmen,  but  still  gen- 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


CO 

orally  faithful  to  ancient  traditions.  Again,  we  de¬ 
tect  it  professed  and  'practiced  by  artists,  tradesmen, 
sophists,  and  scribes,  who  enrich  themselves  by  their 
knowledge  and  sagacity.*  The  third  age  is  that  of 
its  consummated  maturity  and  its  most  resplendent 
triumphs  under  Demades,  Lycurgus,  Hyperides,  AEs- 
chines,  and  Demosthenes.  Eloquence  appears  to  have 
then  laid  aside  the  pen  for  the  sword,  and  to  have 
thrown  all  its  science,  all  its  energies,  into  the  tumult 
of  the  time. 

Cultivated  eloquence  was  backward  in  Greece.  Cic¬ 
ero  was  struck  with  the  slowness  of  its  advent.  Greece, 
says  he,f  is  infatuated  with  eloquence.  She  has  long 
excelled  in  it,  nevertheless  other  arts  are  more  ancient 
than  it;  she  brought  them  to  perfection  long  before  her 
study  of  this  splendid  art  of  speech.  The  author  of 
Brutus  explains  this  tardy  flight  of  eloquence  by  the 
exceptional  difficulties  with  which  it  was  hampered, 
rem  unam  omnium  diffioillimam.  To  this  reason  he 
might  have  added  another.  In  Greece  fine  arts  ap¬ 
peared  each  in  its  turn  by  an  order  of  natural  succes¬ 
sion,  as  in  the  history  of  man  the  phenomena  peculiar 
to  different  periods  of  his  life  introduce  themselves. 
At  first  eloquence  saw  the  sacred  hymn  unfold,  and  the 
epic  poem,  which  for  more  than  a  century  reigned  su¬ 
preme  over  the  Hellenic  world;  then  didactic  and  lyric 
poetry  in  their  various  forms,  and  finally  the  drama. 
When  the  poetic  inspiration  which  had  animated  the 
seventh  and  sixth  centuries  began  to  wane,  prose  was 
born,  and  with  it  history,  eloquence,  and  philosophy. 

*  Without  mentioning  the  price  realized  from  his  lessons,  Isocrates 
received,  we  are  told,  from  Nicoles,  the  son  of  Evagoras,  twenty  talents 
($21,666.60)  for  one  discourse. 

Brutus,  7. 


INTRODUCTION. 


31 


Tims  Greek  genius  pursued,  and  with  what  splendor, 
the  circle  of  its  intellectual  creations  by  a  natural  suc¬ 
cession  of  regular  births,  and  with  a  logical  connec¬ 
tion:  the  manifest  proof  of  spontaneous  generation. 

At  Rome,  on  the  contrary,  where  Greece  sometimes 
presented  her  masterpieces  in  every  branch  at  the  same 
time  to  the  unpolished  sons  of  Latium  for  imitation, 
the  production  of  literary  works  during  the  early  cen¬ 
turies  was  tarnished  by  a  strange  confusion  and  pell- 
mell.*  In  the  presence  of  such  fair  fruits  which  were 
borne  at  different  seasons  from  Greek  genius,  the  Ro¬ 
man  translator,  embarrassed  by  the  choice,  and  aston¬ 
ished  at  their  wealth,  seized  with  avidity  the  treasures 
spread  before  him,  according  to  the  fancy  of  his  appe¬ 
tite.  Then  appeared  reproductions,  sometimes  artifi¬ 
cial,  capricious  grafts  attempted  on  original  plants  at 
each  one’s  fancy,  but  indebted  for  one  part  of  their  sap 
to  that  law  of  progressive  beings  so  well  illustrated  by 
Aristotle, f  and  which  human  genius,  left  to  its  own 
creative  power,  follows  with  the  fidelity  of  nature. 

When  its  hour  came  (which  was  the  advent  of  prose), 
the  eloquence  of  Greece  followed,  in  its  developments, 
the  successive  evolutions  of  the  city.  It  had  no  other 
alternative.  The  arts  of  the  Greeks  were  always  inti¬ 
mately  connected  with  practical  life:  their  works  adapted 
to  a  certain  end.;j;  This  adaptation  was,  in  their  eyes, 
an  essential  quality.  Occasionally  they  converted  it 

*  Ennius,  for  example,  borrowed  from  Greece  tragedies,  come¬ 
dies,  a  philosophical  poem  ( Epicharma ),  a  treatise  in  prose  (. Euhemera ), 
and  a  poem  on  didactic  gastronomy  ( Phagetica ).  The  whole  of  his 
work  is  a  true  satura. 

f  History  of  Animals. 

X  E.  Bout  my,  Philosophy  of  Architecture  in  Greece. 


32 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


into  an  element  of  beauty,  confounding  the  beautiful 
and  the  useful.  And  so,  said  Socrates,  a  body,  an 
edifice,  an  armor,  any  object  whatever,  is  only  beauti¬ 
ful  so  far  as  it  conforms  to  its  purpose,  to  its  proper 
use.*  This  merit  of  fitness  exacted  of  the  plastic  arts 
should  be,  for  a  stronger  reason,  imposed  upon  elo¬ 
quence,  an  indispensable  agent  in  the  civic  and  political 
life  of  the  Greeks,  and  constantly  exercised  as  an 
object  of  primary  necessity,  and  for  this  very  reason 
modified  according  to  the  characters  and  wants  of  the 
times:  at  first  the  plain  weapon  in  which  weight  and 
edge  are  alone  important,  then  a  u  fencing-foil,  ”f  a 
dress-sword,  adorned  with  art  for  display,  and  adroitly 
adjusted  by  logograpliers  in  the  hand  of  whosoever 
had  bespoken  it;  finally  a  falchion,  at  once  sjflendid 
and  murderous,  its  plain  ornaments  not  blunting  its 
edge,  it  darts  in  the  face  of  Philip  incomparable  flashes. 

*  Memorabilia,  iii,  8,  10  ;  iv,  6.  A  narrow  theory,  refuted  by  Plato 
in  his  First  Hippias.  Let  us  also  observe  the  half  utilitarian  defini¬ 
tion  which  Aristotle  gives  of  beauty  in  a  young  man,  a  perfect  man, 
and  an  old  man.  (He  says  nothing  of  woman’s  beauty.)  “  Beauty 
is  of  a  particular  kind  for  each  age.  A  youth’s  beauty  consists  in 
having  a  body  capable  of  enduring  the  fatigues  of  the  race,  and  every 
exercise  requiring  strength;  his  limbs  should  be  so  symmetrical  and 
attractive  as  to  charm  the  eye.  Consequently  the  athletes  who  carry 
away  the  prize  of  the  pentaihlum  are  the  most  beautiful,  inasmuch 
as  they  unite  the  advantages  of  strength  and  agility.  With  the 
grown  man,  beauty  consists  in  being  able  to  endure  the  fatigue  of 
war,  to  please  the  sight,  and  to  inspire  fear.  The  beauty  of  old  men 
consists  in  enduring  the  necessary  toils  of  life,  and  not  being  cha¬ 
grined  at  any  of  the  infirmities  which  accompany  old  age.”  ( Rhetoric , 
i,  5.) 

f  A  saying  attributed  to  Philip  in  comparing  the  eloquence  of 
Isocrates  and  Demosthenes.  (Cf.  Cicero,  On  the  Best  Kind  of  Eloquence.) 


INTRODUCTION. 


33 


First  Period. — Let  us  now  cite  the  principal  charac¬ 
ters  and  most  illustrious  representatives  of  the  three 
ages  of  Greek  eloquence.  Themistocles,  the  greatest 
man  of  Athens  before  Pericles,  was  also  a  great  orator. 
He  established  the  greatness  of  his  country  by  obtain¬ 
ing,  through  his  heroism,  the  sacrifice  of  Athens,  which 
was  abandoned  as  a  prey  to  the  barbarians  that  the 
Athenians  might  boldly  sail  out  upon  an  unknown 
future.  Such  a  victory,  won  over  the  natural  resist¬ 
ances  of  private  interests,  excels  that  of  the  Roman 
orator  who  compelled  the  tribes  to  renounce  the  agra¬ 
rian  law  instituted  to  support  them,  and  more  than 
justifies  the  eulogy  of  Lysias:  u  Themistocles  was  very 
capable  of  speaking,  conceiving  and  acting.”  What 
were  the  characteristics  of  his  eloquence  ?  Undoubt- 
edly  those  which  Cicero  recognized  in  the  ancient 
school, —  precision  and  simplicity,  penetrating  acute¬ 
ness,  rapidity  and  a  fertility  of  thought,  rather  than 
abundant  expressions. 

Pericles  is  the  most  finished  type  of  this  school,  —  an 
orator  “almost  perfect,”  says  the  author  of  Brutus. 
This  eulogy  is  confirmed  by  three  production's  which 
Thucydides'*  puts  in  his  mouth,  an  admirable  trilogy, 
full  of  the  soul  of  a  great  citizen  who  was  worthy  of 
having  governed  for  forty  years  a  people  most  scep¬ 
tical  of  merit  and  most  jealous  of  their  liberties.  Peri¬ 
cles  would  not  have  been  such  if  he  had  been  the 
pupil  of  those  rhetoricians  who  “instructed  how  to 
bark  ( latrare )  to  the  clepsydra.”  He  had  other  in¬ 
structors.  At  first  Pericles  called  science  to  his  aid, 
but  the  science  of  things,  not  of  words.  Two  philoso¬ 
phers  moulded  him:  Zeno  of  Elea,  a  consummate  dia¬ 
lectician,  and,  above  all,  Anaxagoras  of  Clazomenæ, 
*  J.  Girard,  Study  on  Thucydides. 


34 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


whom  his  contemporaries  called  “Intelligence,”  be¬ 
cause  he  was  the  first  who  recognized  it  in  the  universe 
and  adopted  it  as  the  first  element  of  the  Cosmos, 
which  was  regulated  and  embellished  by  it.  These 
two  minds,  eminent  by  their  elevation  and  searching 
acumen,  were  the  Chiron  foster-fathers  of  this  Achilles,  * 
rather  than  the  learned  musician  Damon.  This  is 
apparent  in  the  essence,  the  marrow  of  his  speeches. 
Ilis  mode  of  arguing,  strong  and  simple,  is  that  of 
truth  made  conspicuous  by  lofty,  sententious  thoughts, 
by  picturesque  vivacity,  or  by  a  logical  network  of  ex¬ 
pressions.  His  dignified  familiarity  is  combined  with 
daring  contrasts,  which  from  time  to  time  burst  into 
flashes  of  eloquence  like  the  radiance  of  lightning. 
With  him  logical  strength  was  bound  to  that  concen¬ 
trated  emotion  which  was  born  of  high  conceptions 
and  magnanimous  sentiments,  a  serious  eloquence, 
whose  irresistible  weight  made  all  wills  succumb.  Full 
of  imposing  grandeur  in  its  gravity,  it  left  the  impres¬ 
sion  of  a  Doric  temple.  When  expedient,  Pericles 
could  use  playful  figures,  f  sometimes  witty  ones,  but 
those  were  fugitive  smiles,  for  he  was  a  stranger  to 

*  Plutarch,  Life  of  Pericles.  Isocrates,  who  has  his  reasons  for 
exalting  the  art  of  speech,  complacently  confounds  it  with  philoso¬ 
phy,  and  divides  the  honor  of  having  molded  Pericles  between  Anax¬ 
agoras  and  Damon,  “the  wisest  man  of  that  epoch”  (< ppovtiuoTaruu ). 

f  He  said  of  Ægina,  a  rival  island  situated  in  the  face  of  the 
Piræus,  “We  must  remove  that  blot  from  the  eye  of  the  Piraeus  (lit¬ 
erally,  that  blearedness).  The  oaks  break  themselves  to  pieces  by 
striking  against  one  another;  the  Boeotians  do  likewise  by  fighting 
one  another.”  He  compared  the  Samians  undergoing  the  Athenian 
yoke  against  their  will  to  “little  children  who,  while  weeping,  eat 
their  soup.”  One  of  his  funeral  orations  contains  this  graceful  and 
touching  passage:  “The  republic,  deprived  of  its  youth,  who  have 
been  cut  down  in  war,  is  like  the  year  deprived  of  its  spring-time.” 
Aristotle,  Rhetoric ,  iii,  4,  10. 


INTRODUCTION. 


35 


Roman  urbanity.  Everything  in  him  breathed  auster¬ 
ity.  Ilis  aspect  was  as  staid  as  his  oratory.  Ilis  walk 
was  easy,  the  sound  of  his  voice  always  the  same;  in 
]iis  gestures  and  address  he  preserved  a  moderation 
that  the  most  vehement  animation  never  shook.  Peri¬ 
cles  in  this  aspect  is  a  faithful  image  of  Greek  art, 
always  self-possessed,  even  in  his  most  energetic  in¬ 
tentions.  Ho  rival  could  have  said  of  him,  “Ah,  what 
would  you  have  thought  had  you  heard  the  lion  him¬ 
self  roar?”  As  motionless  as  Homer*  describes  Ulys¬ 
ses  holding  his  sceptre,  by  the  sole  might  of  language 
and  without  gesticulation  he-  inspired  respect,  even  ter¬ 
ror.  f  These  testimonies  received  from  the  ancients 
should  prevent  all  misconceptions  of  the  real  meaning 
of  characteristics  often  cited  by  Eupolis  and  Aris¬ 
tophanes.  When  these  two  writers  of  comedy  speak  of 
the  lightnings,  the  thunders  of  Pericles  at  the  tribune, 
they  wish  to  express,  not  a  clamorous  vehemence  nor 
oratorical  bursts  of  startling  impetuosity,  but  the  timid 
admiration  which  a  dignified  eloquence  inspires  in  the 
multitude,  and  in  which  the  dreadful  majesty  of  the 
Olympian  ruler  seems  to  shine  forth. 

Pericles,  who  was  a  statesman,  and  not  a  professional 
orator,  never  wrote  his  orations.  Like  Aristides,  The- 
mistocles,  and  the  ancient  orators,  he  improvised  after 
a  laborious  meditation.  The  impression  produced  was 
immediate  and  lasting;  “lie  left  the  goad  in  the  minds 
of  his  hearers.”  But  powerful  as  was  his  voice,  an¬ 
tiquity  has  scarcely  transmitted  a  feeble  echo.  Neither 
Pericles  nor  his  contemporaries  thought  of  preserving 
such  touching  harangues.  Only  a  few  specimens  of 
these  masterpieces  have  been  saved  from  oblivion. 
They  are  like  detached  fragments  of  the  eloquent  mar- 

*  Iliad,  iii,  219.  f  Vim  dicendi  terroremque  timu&runt.  (Brutus,  xi,  9.) 


36 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


ble  which  Pericles  fashioned  by  inspiration  and  with¬ 
out  forethought.  But  where  is  the  statue  itself?  Where 
is  the  Minerva  of  Phidias  ?  Contemporaries  saw  it  ap¬ 
pear  in  a  day.  Its  majesty  touched  them;  they  obeyed 
its  orders  and  permitted  it  to  vanish.  Why  have  the 
authors  or  witnesses  of  the  Attic  masterpieces  deprived 
us  of  contemplating  their  works  ?  In  their  eyes  the 
sole  object  of  such  works  was  practical  use.  Political 
eloquence  seemed  to  them  created  for  action  alone,  not 
for  the  admiration  of  future  readers.  Stenography  was, 
perhaps,  known  about  this  epoch;  no  one,  however, 
deigned  to  make  use  of  it.  Pericles  spoke  for  the  dig¬ 
nity  or  safety  of  the  city.  He  disregarded  the  estab¬ 
lished  rule  that  all  speeches  should  be  written;  and 
yet,  what  must  that  eloquence  have  been  which  is  still 
so  forcible  and  grand,  half  concealed  under  the  veil  of 
his  historian  and  interpreter? 

Second  Period.  —  This  disinterestedness,  regretted 
by  the  learned,  lasted  until  the  time  of  Antiphon,  the 
author  of  the  first  written  discourse,  which  proved  an 
innovation  favorable  to  the  perfection  of  eloquence. 

The  age  of  Pericles  ignored  rich  developments  or 
the  effects  of  style  in  the  structure  of  composition. 
On  the  day  when  orators  aspired  to  the  glory  of  writers 
eloquence  became  enriched  with  precious  gifts.  The 
pen,  says  Cicero,  is’ an  excellent  master  of  eloquence. 
Stylus  optimus  clicendi  magister  et  effector.  After 
leaving  Antiphon,  it  becomes  necessary  to  distinguish 
the  orator  of  action  from  the  orator  who  merely  com¬ 
poses.  The  first  is  a  political  personage,  who  speaks 
at  the  ecclesia  when  circumstances  invite  him.  The 
second  does  not  appear,  or  rarely  appears,  before  the 
people;  he  is  an  advocate  of  a  new  character, —  an 


INTRODUCTION. 


37 


advocate  who  does  not  speak;  hut  he  writes.  In  his 
cabinet  he  composes  treatises  on  rhetoric  ( rlyvai ),  or 
orations  on  fancy  subjects.  He  becomes  in  turn  the 
accuser  and  defender  in  the  same  cause.  Sometimes 
even  to  these  two  pleadings,  which  were  already  a 
sufficient  proof  of  the  extent  of  his  talent,  he  joins  the 
instance  and  reply,  all  in  the  same  suit.  Such  are  the 
tetralogies  of  Antiphon. 

Very  often  these  school  exercises  served  to  train  him 
for  the  occupation  of  logographer ,  or  dicographer , — 
that  is,  a  writer  of  pleas  for  the  use  of  another.  The 
Athenian  law  required  the  parties  in  civil  and  criminal 
cases  to  appear  in  person.  For  a  long  time  the  sim¬ 
plicity  of  manners  rendered  the  observation  of  the  law 
easy.  But  when  speech  became  an  art,  and  eloquence 
an  obligatory  requisite,  the  majority  of  those  interested 
in  the  proceedings  freed  themselves  from  their  dangers. 
They  had  recourse  to  advocates  whose  talent  increased 
their  chances  of  gaining  their  causes.  Thus  the  banker, 
Phormio,  not  desirous  to  amuse  his  audience  with  his 
“solecisms,”  esteemed  it  safer  to  be  an  able  speaker 
by  proxy.  The  client  paid  for  his  harangue  as  one 
pays  for  a  consultation,  and  he  went  to  the  tribunal  to 
deliver  it  with  all  possible  naturalness,  feigning  an 
improvisation,  as  if  he  were  speaking  extempore,  and 
not  from  memory. 

The  rhetorician  did  not  write  soffily  for  the  school  or 
tribunal.  Sometimes  extracts  for  display,  in  which  he 
was  wont  to  exhibit  the  fruits  of  his  art,  were  destined 
for  assemblies,*  or  read  in  the  solemn  reunions  at  the 
great  games.  Such  was  the  Olympiac  of  Lysias,  the 
Olympic  of  Gorgias,  and  the  Panegyrics ,  so  named 

*  Isocrates  contended  for  the  prize  which  Artemisia  offered  for  a 
eulogy  on  lier  husband,  Mausolus. 


38 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


from  the  general  assembly  (pa^yopiq)  before  which 
they  were  pronounced. 

Sop /lists.  —  The  logograpliic  rhetoricians  were,  in 
different  degrees,  the  students  of  the  sophists,  whose 
instruction,  during  the  thirty  years  which  intervened 
between  the  death  of  Pericles  and  Socrates,  provoked 
a  great  explosion  of  ideas,  of  new  methods  in  science, 
and,  unfortunately,  of  new  methods  in  morals.  The 
sophists  were  vigorously  attacked  and  admired  by  the 
ancients.  We  have  seen  them  in  turn  outlawed  (Pro¬ 
tagoras)  and  honored  (Gorgias)  with  a  gilded  statue  at 
Delphi,  in  the  very  temple  of  Apollo.  Let  us  briefly 
mention  what  was  pernicious  and  useful  in  their  inno¬ 
vations.  Their  influence  was,  in  a  certain  measure, 
beneficial  to  science.  The  systems  previous  to  the 
age  of  the  sophists  were  vast  conceptions  à  priori , 
sometimes  tainted  with  théogonie  prejudices.  The 
aim  of  the  new  spirit  was  to  free  science  from  these 
shackles,  and  to  restore  it  to  the  observation  of  nature. 
This  demand  for  truth  provoked  then,  as  always,  pas¬ 
sionate  resistances.  Omitting  the  rivals  in  Plato’s 
Euthypliron ,  Aristophanes,  the  conservative  poet  of 
The  Clouds ,  in  hatred  toward  the  new  spirit,  became 
the  patron  of  popular  prejudices  against  the  natural 
philosophers.*  ITe  pronounced  the  sophists  impious 
for  daring  to  teach  that  it  was  not  Jupiter  who  thun¬ 
dered.  He  saw  a  crime  against  the  state  precisely  in 
one  of  their  best  titles.  He  ridiculed  them  in  an  ill- 

*  Plutarch,  Life  of  Nicias.  Strong  minds  of  the  time  secretly  dis¬ 
cussed  the  books  which  explained  the  eclipses  of  the  moon  humanly. 
The  study  of  physics  caused  Protagoras  to  be  banished,  Anaxagoras 
to  be  thrown  into  prison,  and  Socrates  to  be  poisoned.  In  modern 
times  astronomy  has  not  been  more  clement.  Vide  J.  Bertrand,  Les 
fondateurs  de  V Astronomie  moderne. 


INTRODUCTION. 


39 


judged  scene,  and  in  spite  of  liis  rapture,  and  against 
liis  custom,  the  laugh  was  not  at  Athens,  and  is  still 
less  in  our  day  on  his  side. 

With  this  work  of  scientific  renovation  was  combined 
another  of  the  greatest  interest, —  the  minute  study  of 
thought  and  language.  Formerly  natural  talent  alone 
had  inspired  political  eloquence,  but,  thanks  to  the 
sophists,  it  found  a  useful  auxiliary  in  art.  About  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century  Sicily*  produced  renowned 
masters  of  sophistry.  Corax,  Tisias,  and  Gorgias 
promulgated  a  method  of  instruction  unknown  or  neg¬ 
lected  until  that  time.  The  Athenian  pupils  surpassed 
their  masters.  The  most  illustrious  was  Isocrates, 
whose  school  was  a  laboratory  of  eloquence  open  to  all 
Greece.  Like  the  Trojan  horse,  it  gave  birth  to  heroes: 
the  rivals  of  Demosthenes,  and  Demosthenes  himself,  f 

This  is  a  glowing  eulogy  on  the  rhetorical  sophists  in 
the  person  of  their  most  famous  pupil.  Ho  doubt  it  is 
exaggerated:  neither  Brutus,  the  friend  of  Cicero,  nor 
Aristotle  indorsed  it.  nevertheless,  that  the  prince 
of  Roman  orators  believed  he  could  confer  it  upon 
them,  even  with  an  indulgence  tainted  with  partiality, 
they  must  undoubtedly  have  rendered  unquestionable 
services  to  eloquence. 

In  fact,  eloquence  owed  to  them  new  qualities.  Be¬ 
fore  their  time  it  had  not  escaped  a  degree  of  stiffness: 
its  conciseness  sometimes  verged  on  obscurity.  After 
the  rhetoricians  it  acquired  flexibility,  transparency, 
and  copiousness.  Its  muscles,  somewhat  exposed  and 
projecting,  became  indued  with  graceful  curvatures, 
which  did  not  exclude  strength.  It  was  like  the  style 

*  Syracuse  was  the  Athens  of  Sicily.  Brutus,  12;  Thucydides,  viii, 
96.  f  Brutus,  8,  12;  Orator ,  13;  De  Oratore ,  ii,  22. 


40 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


of  Raphael’s  Virgin  Gardener  compared  to  his  Iloly 
Family  and  Transfiguration.  It  acquired  from  them 
a  metrical  taste;  it  learned  to  round  its  periods,  and  at 
the  same  time  to  arrive,  by  fine  analysis,  at  the  most 
delicate  shades  of  language.  The  sophists,  like  the 
stoics  of  Rome  at  a  later  time,  were  fond  of  etymo¬ 
logical  and  philological  researches.  Protagoras  wrote 
a  treatise  on  the  correction  of  language  ( 6p0oénsia)\ 
Prodicus,  on  the  exact  signification  of  words  and  syno¬ 
nyms;  Evenus  of  Paros  composed  a  poem  on  the  for¬ 
mation  of  words.  The  sophists  were  very  skillful  in 
decomposing  thought  into  its  elements  in  order  to  com¬ 
pare  and  contrast  them.  Language  must  have  felt 
these  inquisitive  studies:  ingenious  or  bold  antitheses 
gave  delicateness  or  energy  to  the  style.  This  exercise 
in  penetration  and  artistic  adjustment  ( concinnitas )  was 
pleasing  to  the  subtle  mind  of  the  Greeks. 

But  these  fascinating  qualities  were  accompanied  by 
grave  defects;  they  led  to  subtil ty,  to  artificiality  and 
“false  lights,”  to  all  the  refinements  of  symmetrically 
balanced  periods,  of  consonances  and  assonances, 
“adorable  ”  cadences  like  that  of  the  sonnet  of  Oron- 
tes,  learned  puerilities  honored  by  the  gravest  rhetori¬ 
cians  who  were  skilled  in  minute  precepts.*  In  the 
hands  of  these  word-spinnersf  what  was  delicate  be¬ 
came  finical,  color  turned  into  vermilion;  by  inuring 
the  taste  to  the  flexibilities  of  dialectics  they  fell  into 
quibbles  on  syllogisms.  In  its  zeal  to  polish  the  idea 
the  file  reduced  it  to  nothing;  in  their  care  to  adorn 

*  Aristotle  does  not  deign  to  speak  of  them.  Dionysius  of  Hali¬ 
carnassus  ( Memoirs  on  the  Ancient  Orators ,  Isocrates,  ch.  14)  made  a 
just  criticism  of  a  page  of  Isocrates,  full  of  these  affectations  of  lan¬ 
guage.  (Cf.  On  the  Elocution  of  Demosthenes ,  ch.  19,  20). 

t  AoyodoudâXouç  (Plato),  Orator ,  12. 


INTRODUCTION. 


41 


the  thought  it  became  suffocated  with  dregs;  they  de¬ 
sired  to  balance  the  idea  with  grace,  to  give  to  it  the 
most  advantageous  appearance  and  dress:  it  was  trans¬ 
formed  into  a  manikin,  irreproachable  as  to  adjustment 
and  posture;  blooming  in  smiling  colors  it  aims  at 
figures  (tr/^ara),  it  even  makes  miens;  but  it  is  empty 
and  inanimate,  an  object  of  vain-glory  to  its  frivolous 
author,  of  passing  curiosity  to  the  spectator,  and  of 
contempt  in  the  eyes  of  good  taste  and  sense.  Such 
was  the  artificial  eloquence  pictured  by  Balzac,  such 
Pascal’s  Village  Queen ,  and  such  was  that  affectation 
of  thought  and  language  known  under  the  name  of 
préciosité.  The  opening  of  the  seventeenth  century 
in  France  was  acquainted  with  the  harmonious  mag¬ 
niloquence  of  Gorgias  in  the  grandiloquence  of  the 
Spaniards,  Gongora  and  Antonio  Perez;  the  affected 
subtility  of  Pol  us  of  Agrigentum  and  of  Hippias  of 
Elis  in  the  vivacity  of  mind  (vivezze  (Pingegno)  of 
Guarini,  and  of  the  cavalier  Marino.  The  Précieuses , 
or  affected  ladies,  like  the  sophists  certainly  aided  in 
perfecting  the  language;  but,  like  them,  they  kept  the 
office  of  wit;  they  pursued  the  end  of  the  end, —  the 
end  of  things, —  and  they  caught  it  in  company  with 
affectation.  The  sophist  called  the  sea  “the  blue 
tinged  floor  of  Ampliritrite, ”  the  great  king  the  “Ju¬ 
piter  of  the  Persians”;  vultures  he  denominated  “liv¬ 
ing  tombs.”  With  him  an  object  has  “pale  colors,  is 
anémique .”*  In  the  same  strain  the  Saturday  fre- 

*  Aristotle,  Rhetoric,  iii,  passim.  Aristotle  censures  as  “cold”  or 
“  ridiculous  ”  certain  expressions  and  figures  which  we  would  not 
have  the  severity  to  condemn  in  him.  Gorgias  gave  to  flatterers  the 
epithet  of  r.Tu>y<'>;j.ou<yoç  (who  begs  with  art).  Alcidamas  called  the 
Odyssey  “  a  true  mirror  of  human  life.”  Several  peculiar  expressions 
of  the  sophists  deserve  to  pass  into  language.  Strange  analogy  with 
the  Précieuses. 


42 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GKEECE. 


quenters  of  Mlle.  Scudéry  “  imprint  tlieir  shoes  in 
snow,”  and  call  a  court  promenade  “an  empire  of 
glances,”  and  violins  “the  souls  of  the  feet.”* 

This  perversion  of  taste  in  France,  an  ephemeral 
imitation  of  the  false  bel  esprit  of  Spain  and  Italy,  did 
not  coincide  with  a  prostration  of  beliefs  and  manners. 
The  hôtel  de  Rambouillet  aspired  to  “unbrutalize”  the 
manners  as  well  as  the  language.  It  refined  the  senti¬ 
ments  without  corrupting  them.  In  Greece  it  was  not 
so,  and  the  sophists,  wretched  masters  of  rhetoric  as 
they  were,  were  still  worse  logicians  and  moralists. 
It  was  well  to  protest  against  the  ambitious  systems 
of  philosophers  who  pretended  to  draw  from  their 
heads  alone  an  explanation  of  the  universe,  but  to 
deny  all  science  because  it  had  wandered  away  was  an 
absurdity  worse  than  the  evil  justly  criticised.  Be¬ 
lieving  in  the  senses  alone  is  a  prejudice  quite  as  peril¬ 
ous  as  believing  alone  in  one’s  mind;  and  the  ideal¬ 
istic  philosopher  (Anaxagoras),  declaring  snow  black 
because  the  water  of  which  it  is  formed  is  of  a  dark 
color,  f  did  not  have  reproaches  to  receive  from  the 
empiric  who,  like  Epicurus,  gave  the  sun  and  moon 
the  volume  they  appeared  to  have,  namely,  that  of  a 
Boeotian  cheese.  It  is  praiseworthy  to  free  philosophy 
from  sacerdotal  bonds;  but  is  it  reasonable,  if  religious 
tradition  is  not  the  highest  authority  in  science,  to 
constitute  man  the  sole  arbiter  of  all  truth  and  the 
measure  of  all  things?:):  To  deny  virtue  and  absolute 
good;  to  admit  only  the  probable,  the  agreeable,  and 
the  useful;  to  teach  how  to  uphold  with  an  equal  likeli¬ 
hood  either  a  thesis  or  its  antithesis;  to  make  a  weak 

*  Dictionaire  de  Somciise. 

\  Cicero,  Academica ,  ii,  23,  31,  and  Lucretius ,  v,  565. 
d';Tu)v  pirpov  avOpw—oç  “Protagoras.” 


INTRODUCTION. 


43 


(ryr-cyv)  argument  overthrow  a  stronger  (xpsiTTwv  lôyoc) 
argument; — such  was  the  foundation  of  the  sophists’ 
doctrine.  Philosophic  scepticism  was  born  in  Greece 
from  an  excess  of  metaphysical  speculation,  just  as  the 
idealistic  exaggerations  of  the  Cartesians  elicited  the 
scepticism  of  the  eighteenth  century.  But,  if  excesses 
are  explained  by  reaction,  they  are  never  justifiable, 
especially  when  they  step  from  the  domain  of  pure 
ideas  into  that  of  morality  in  order  to  destroy  it.  The 
scepticism  of  the  eighteenth  century  produced  Hel¬ 
vétius,  d’Holbach,  and  Lamettrie;*  the  sophists  of 
Greece  did  not  hesitate,  on  their  part,  to  draw  from 
their  doctrine  its  lurking  poisons.  Is  the  law  of  con¬ 
science  indefeasible  ?  or  is  the  law  of  nature  the  only 
true  law?  Is  divine  justice  aught  but  an  oratorical 
supposition?  Does  a  successful  crime  cease  to  be 
criminal?  That  is  according  to  circumstances.  Yes, 
if  the  tiling  suits  you;  no,  if  you  find  the  contrary  more 
advantageous.  Thus  Greece,  by  subtilizing,  amused 

*  “  Tlie  sentiment  of  self-love  is  the  only  basis  upon  which  a  use¬ 
ful  morality  can  be  founded.”  (Helvetius,  De  V Esprit.)  “  It  would  be 
useless,  and  perhaps  unjust,  to  require  man  to  be  virtuous  if  he  were 
not  so  without  rendering  himself  unhappy:  when  vice  renders 
man  happy  he  is  to  love  vice.”  (D’Holbach,  Système  de  la  Nature.) 
Lamettrie,  Passim:  “Remorse  arises  from  the  prejudices  of  educa¬ 
tion.  *  *  *  It  is  permitted,  according  to  the  law  of  nature  and  Puf- 
fendorff,  to  take  by  force  a  little  of  that  which  another  has  in  excess.” 
Lamettrie  considers  innocent  “those  philosophical  demolitions  of 
vices  and  virtues.  That  will  not  prevent  the  people,  a  vile  herd  of 
imbeciles,  from  continuing  their  course,  from  respecting  the  lives 
and  purses  of  others,  and  from  believing  in  the  most  ridiculous  preju¬ 
dices.”  Such  is  the  philosophy  which  he  calls  “our  amiable  queen,” 
and  Voltaire  “execrable.”  According  to  this  philosophical  physi¬ 
cian,  man  is  a  “machine.”  The  whole  machine  gets  out  of  order  if 
its  springs  are  forced  to  overwork.  The  author  of  L'Art  de  Jouir 
died  of  indigestion.  His  landlord,  it  is  true,  Fredrick,  “the  Solomon 
of  the  North,”  wrote  his  funeral  oration. 


44 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


herself  as  if  fencing  with  demonstrations  or  refutations 
of  the  most  necessary  moral  truths. 

Protagoras  commenced  one  of  his  works  with  this 
peremptory  declaration:  “Are  there  gods,  or  are  there 
no  gods  ?  Two  reasons  prevent  me  from  devoting  my¬ 
self  to  the  examination  of  this  question:  the  uncer¬ 
tainty  of  the  thing,  and  the  brevity  of  human  life.” 
Antiphon,  although  a  man  of  grave  character  and 
weighty  eloquence  (he  was  surnamed  Nestor),  laughs 
at  the  prejudicial  and  religious  beliefs  of  his  contem¬ 
poraries.  “  Certain  men  do  not  live  the  present  life, 
hut  prepare  themselves  with  great  trouble,  as  if  they 
had  to  live  another  life,  and. not  the  present  life;  in 
the  meantime  the  hours  escape  them,  and  their  time 
has  past.  ”  *  This  present  life,  the  sole  object  of  the 
sophists,  was  precisely  what  Socrates  disregarded  for 
the  life  to  come, —  Socrates,  a  novice  like  the  sophists 
as  to  scientific  methods,  hut  as  hostile  to  their  religious 
and  moral  scepticism  as  to  their  filigreed  language. 
Sophistry,  “a  school  of  impudence,”  had  instructed  the 
great  statesman  of  the  Gorgias.  Callicles  threw  away 
the  preconceptions  of  small  minds  as  litter.  The 
strongest  reason  is  always  the  best.  Might  conquers 
right, —  a  theory  upheld  in  our  day  by  important  per¬ 
sonages,  with  the  annexation  of  provinces  to  support 
them;  a  theory  formerly  taught  in  certain  schools  of 
Greece,  and  put  into  practice  by  her  statesmen. f  By 
losing  the  sense  of  the  true,  the  sophists  and  the 
Athenians,  their  subservient  disciples,  lost  the  sen¬ 
timent  of  divine  existence,  of  goodness  and  justice, 
which  are  identified  with  it.  That  which  the  experi- 

*  Oral.  Attici,  Didot,  p.238,  §  125;  G.  Perrot,  D Eloquence  Judi¬ 
ciaire  el  Politique  d  Athènes. 

f  Thucydides,  i,  76;  iii,  37,  40;  v,  89  et  seq. 


INTRODUCTION. 


45 


ence  of  antiquity,  with  Hesiod  and  Æsop,  had  only 
considered  as  a  brutal  fact,*  the  sophists  had  set  up 
as  a  principle,  and  this  principle  they  applied  with  a 
cruel  logic  worthy  of  Machiavel’s  Prince.  These  poi¬ 
soned  maxims  sooner  or  later  destroyed  those  who 
fostered  them.  4  Athens  profited  by  the  apology  for 
tyranny  and  usurpation.  Under  the  grasp  of  Philip 
she  bitterly  expiated  her  sophisms. 

The  moral  influence  of  the  sophists  was  therefore 
very  pernicious,  but  their  influence  on  eloquence  was 
not  altogether  bad.  The  Attic  orators  profited  by 
their  researches  without  sacrificing  to  their  errors. 
The  justness  and  stability  of  the  Attic  temperament 
had  reacted  against  the  allurements  of  Sicilian  vices. 
In  the  hands  of  Lysias,  Isæus,  and  their  school,  prose, 
judiciously  elaborated,  learned  to  adorn  itself  without 
coquetry,  to  blend  simplicity  and  grace,  vigor  and  ease. 
Ho  longer  were  there  evidences  of  effort  or  laborious 
meditation,  but  an  easy  and  fluent  style,  less  solicitous 
to  induce  reflection  than  to  instruct  by  its  precision 
and  clearness.  Ho  longer  do  we  behold  in  it  the 
glittering  prisms  of  sophistry,  with  irredescent  colors 
and  flattering  illusions.  It  is  a  transparent  crystal,  in 
which  objects  appear  in  their  natural  tints  and  propor¬ 
tions.  Hor  need  the  eye  disentangle  their  real  con¬ 
tours  under  artificial  reflections  and  undulating  move¬ 
ments.  It  beholds  them  clearly  drawn  in  mellow  re- 

*  Æsop,  The  Earthen  Kettle  and  the  Iron  Kettle;  Hesiod,  The 
Nightingale  and  the  Hawk. 

f“ Whoever  plays  the  tyrant  inevitably  falls  into  the  evils  of 
tyranny,  and  suffers  what  he  caused  others  to  suffer.  Athens  has 
testified  to  this.  She  placed  garrisons  in  the  citadels  of  other  cities, 
and,  as  a  result  of  this,  saw  the  enemy  (the  Lacedaemonians)  master  of 
her  own.”  Isocrates,  Discourse  on  Peace ,  p.  113,  §  91  ;  Didot. 


46 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


lief,  like  the  tracery  of  cordage  on  a  Piræan  ship  under 
the  fading  rays  of  the  setting  sun. 

Third  Period. — The  Attics  bequeathed  to  their  suc¬ 
cessors  an  exquisite  instrument, —  a  clear,  expressive, 
and  sufficiently  picturesque  prose.  Their  eloquence 
was  at  all  times  a  little  wanting  in  action  and  heat.* 
This  placidity,  which,  according  to  our  taste,  verges 
upon  coldness,  was  imposed  upon  the  orators  by  law. 
The  Athenians  knew  themselves  too  well  to  trust  them¬ 
selves  to  eloquence.  Ulysses  closed  the  ears  of  his 
companions  to  the  song  of  the  sirens;  the  Athenians 
captivated  the  mouths  of  the  sirens  j*  in  the  agora. 
The  law  of  the  tribunals  interdicted  pathetic  appeals. 
If  the  advocate  attempted  to  use  the  pathetic,  an  officer 
recalled  him  to  his  duty.  The  Areopagus  observed  this 
rule  with  jealous  respect;  however,  it  was  eluded  on 
the  day  when  Hyperides  pleaded  for  Phryne.  The 
mute  eloquence  of  unveiled  beauty  touched  the  grave 
assemblage, —  an  overwhelming  peroration  not  fore¬ 
seen  by  the  laws.  The  mild  eloquence  of  the  genuine 
Attics  was  unequal  to  the  agitations  of  the  Macedonian 
period.  Political  orators  then  kindled  the  tire  which 
Atticism  had  preferred  to  leave  smouldering.  The 
“clear  fountain”  became  an  impetuous  torrent;  the 
“gentle  zephyr”  a  “tempest  accompanied  with  thun¬ 
der-bolts.”  ^  This  eloquence  was  not  only  artistic,  but 
militant  in  the  midst  of  impassioned  contests  between 
the  adversaries  and  partisans  of  Philip.  One  side, 

*  We  may  mention,  as  an  exception,  the  pathetic  peroration  of 
Andocide’s  discourse  On  the  Mysteries ;  Oratores  Attici.  Didot,  p.  72, 
Sec.  144. 

f  On  Isocrates’  tomb  a  column  thirty  cubits  high  was  erected, 
upon  which  was  surmounted  a  siren  seven  cubits  in  height. 

X  Quintilian,  vi,  1  ;  x,  1. 


INTRODUCTION. 


47 


through  venality  or  good  faith,  advised  the  Macedo¬ 
nian  alliance.  They  saw  in  the  father  of  Alexander, 
not  an  ambitious  man,  meditating,  by  craft  and  force,  to 
strike  the  heaviest  blow  that  the  Greek  world  could 
suffer, —  the  destruction  of  Athenian  liberty;  but  they 
looked  upon  him  as  the  pacifactory  arbiter  of  danger¬ 
ous  dissensions, —  the  future  leader  of  Europe  against 
Asia.  The  other  party  spurned  this  savior  as  the 
violator  of  Athenian  dignity  by  his  past  life  and  des¬ 
tined  course.  They  marshaled  themselves  against  him 
with  all  the  force  of  their  genius,  with  the  recollection 
of  their  ancient  valor,  which  they  laid  before  the  eyes 
of  those  Athenians  who  were  indifferent  about  the  in¬ 
vader.  At  their  head  appeared  Demosthenes,  the  voice 
of  his  mother  country  and  the  savior  of  Hellenic  lib¬ 
erty,  if  it  were  possible  to  save  it.  But  if  Phocion  was 
the  “chopper”*  of  Demosthenes’  arguments,  Demos¬ 
thenes  could  not  likewise  be  the  “chopper”  of  Philip’s 
actions,  and  as  might  triumphed  over  right,  arms  tri¬ 
umphed  over  eloquence.  We  will  study  this  period, 
the  most  beautiful  and  last  of  Greek  eloquence.  After 
a  sublime  effort,  and  a  burst  of  genius  worthy  of  the 
patriotism  which  inspired  it,  eloquence  fell  and  perished 
with  everything  else;  it  exhaled  its  last  breath  at  Ca- 
lauria,  on  that  day  when,  in  the  presence  of  the  satel¬ 
lites  of  Antipater,  the  author  of  the  Oration  on  the 
Grown  expired. 

Let  us  here  repeat  a  fact  worthy  of  notice,  and  con¬ 
tradictory  to  the  common  ground  of  the  joint  respon¬ 
sibility  of  morals  and  eloquence.  Messala  (. Dialogue 
of  Orators )  labors  to  find  the  causes  of  the  decline  of 
eloquence.  He  imagines  he  finds  the  principal  one  in 

*  ij  rùj'j  è/j lôi'j  Àôyatv  y.u-\ç  àvicrraraty  a  saying  of  Demosthenes, 
according  to  Plutarch. 


48 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GKEECE. 


tlie  decline  of  morals.  Seneca*  also  affirms  that  morals 
are  the  regulators  of  eloquence.  “As  is  life,  so  is  the 
language;  moreover,  wherever  you  see  a  corrupt  lan¬ 
guage,  you  can  he  assured  that  the  morals  are  cor¬ 
rupted.”  This  estimate  is  not  altogether  true.  Style 
may  undoubtedly  he  the  mirror  of  character.  Mecœ- 
nas  and  the  Spartan  Sthenelai'das,  Hicias  and  Alcibia¬ 
des,  had  not  the  same  soul;  they  did  not  speak  with 
the  same  air.  Eloquence  often  savors  of  a  baseness  of 
the  heart,  or  reflects  its  nobility.  But  does  it  follow 
from  this  possible  correlation  that  the  decline  of  morals 
necessarily  draws  with  it  that  of  art  and  speech  ?  Lit¬ 
erary  and  political  history  deny  this  assertion;  for  the 
heart  may  remain  pure  when  the  taste  becomes  de¬ 
praved,  and  not  unfrequently  taste  has  been  purified  at 
an  instant  when  the  soul  had  lost  its  virtuous  energy. 
Moral  sentiment  ennobles  eloquence  as  well  as  the 
works  of  art  in  general,  but  it  is  not  indispensable  to 
them.  And  so  the  palmiest  days  of  heroism  in  Greece 
were  not  the  days  of  her  eloquence.  The  soldiers  of 
Marathon  and  Salamis  were  citizens  rather  than  ora¬ 
tors:  Themistocles  must  be  excepted,  for  he  was  emi¬ 
nently  both  the  one  and  the  other.  But  even  his 
example  confirms  the  natural  independence  of  genius 
and  virtue.  Aristides,  morally  his  superior,  stood  far 
below  him  in  political  genius  and  oratorical  talent. 

During  the  period  intervening  between  the  close  of 
the  Peloponnesian  war  and  the  Macedonian  interven¬ 
tion,  f  the  sentiment  of  moral  grandeur  appeared  to  be 
banished  from  Hellenic  society.  And  yet  this  was  the 
epoch  during  which  eloquence  prepared  itself  for  the 

*  Ad  Lucilium ,  114. 

f  Ot.  Muller  cited  the  fact  without  stopping  to  explain  it,  t.  ii, 
p.  573,  of  the  translation  by  M.  K.  Hillebrand. 


INTRODUCTION. 


49 


flight  which  was  destined  to  carry  it  to  perfection  in 
the  immortal  productions  of  Demosthenes  and  Æsclii- 
nes.  This  phenomenon  is  not  at  all  surprising.  Al¬ 
ready  eloquence  had  presented  a  striking  contrast 
with  morals  during  the  struggle  between  Athens  and 
the  Dorian  race.  Who  is  not  struck  in  Thucydides* 
with  the  somber  picture  of  Greek  profligacy,  in  the 
midst  of  the  fearful  commotions  of  the  Peloponnesian 
war,  and  of  rampant  passions  of  the  most  detestable 
dye  ?  Eloquence  had  then  lost  much  of  its  moral  ex¬ 
cellence,  but  it  retained  its  artistic  worth.  Alcibiades 
and  Cleon,  statesmen  infested  with  the  vices  of  their 
time,  and  worthy  of  the  felicitations  of  Timon,  the 
Misanthrope,  were,  to  the  misfortune  of  Athens,  very 
powerful  orators.  This  proves  that  moral  conscience 
and  taste  (a  kind  of  æsthetic  conscience,  applicable  to 
the  estimate  of  the  beautiful),  do  not  necessarily  follow 
a  parallel  development.  On  the  contrary,  perfect  elo¬ 
quence,  the  master  of  all  its  resources,  presumes  cul¬ 
ture  and  an  advanced  state  of  civilization,  rarely  the 
consorts  of  austere  morals,  f  “  Grand  eloquence,  like 
fire,  requires  aliments  to  nourish  it,  action  to  excite  it; 
it  is  in  burning  that  it  displays  its  brilliancy.”^;  Now 
the  most  combustible  substances  are  not  always  the 
purest.  The  scourge  of  war  raises  up  great  captains; 
eloquence  lives  on  storms,  on  guilty  angers  or  holy 
wraths.  Demosthenes  hated  the  invader  with  a  zeal 

*  iii,  82,  84. 

f  Bautru’s  calumnious  sally  is  well  known,  “  An  lionest  man  and 
good  morals  do  not  harmonize  ”  ;  and  this  saying,  which  is  surprising 
in  a  man  of  good  taste,  “The  society  of  women  corrupts  morals 
and  forms  the  taste.”  ( Esprit  des  Lois ,  xix,  8.)  These  sentiments,  if 
well  founded,  would  justify  J.  J.  Rousseau’s  paradox  on  the  per¬ 
nicious  influence  of  civilization  and  society. 

%  Dialogue  of  the  Orators ,  30. 

3 


50 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECÊ. 


that  did  him  as  much  honor  as  his  eloquence.  Never¬ 
theless  it  must  be  conceded  that  the  patriotic  dislikes 
which  were  at  the  bottom  of  his  heart  were  (to  omit 
other  weak  points  which  it  would  be  puerile  to  deny) 
allied  to  rancorous  personal  feuds:  a  source  of  action 
far  from  generous,  albeit  his  eloquence  was  still  admi¬ 
rable.  His  oration  on  the  prevarications  of  the  embassy 
equals,  in  an  artistic  point  of  view,  his  finest  Philippics. 

The  ideal  definition  of  an  orator  given  by  Cato*  is 
rather  a  wish  than  the  statement  of  a  general  fact. 
How  many  men  among  the  ancients  and  moderns  have 
failed  to  maintain  their  integrity  on  the  same  elevation 
of  their  talents!  Satis  éloquentiœ ,  sapientiœ  jparum. 
Sallust  applies  this  phrase  to  Catiline.  It  could  be  as 
appropriately  applied  to  his  historian  and  to  other  per¬ 
sonages.  Thus  it  appears  that  bad  taste  and  good 
morals  are  sometimes  found  together.  In  France  the 
theorists  of  the  charming,  of  the  sensational,  have  often 
been  a  very  estimable  and  extremely  serious  class  of 
people.  For  instance,  Father  Bouhours  and  Montes¬ 
quieu  ( Essai  sur  le  goût).  UA  magistrate  rose  by  his 
merit  to  the  highest  dignity.  He  published  a  moral 
work  in  which  the  sarcasm  is  unique  ”  (Labruyère). 
Taste,  before  the  time  of  Boileau,  was  generally  de¬ 
testable,  but  can  it  be  said  that  the  first  half  of  the 
seventeenth  century  was  inferior  in  its  morals  to  the 
last  half  ? 

Let  us  return  to  Greek  eloquence.  If,  in  the  midst  of 
the  decline  of  private  and  public  morals,  when  a  Pliiloc- 
rates  and  a  Timarchus  were  possible,  in  the  bosom  of  tri¬ 
umphant  egotism  and  venality,  Greece,  always  proud  of 
her  past  history,  but  incapable  of  sustaining  it,  produced 
her  most  famous  orators,  she  owed  it  to  circumstances 

*  Vir  bonus  dicencli  peritus. 


INTKODUCTION. 


51 


especially  favorable  which  made  such  orators  contem¬ 
porary  with  the  merciless  duel  between  Athens  and 
Philip,  and  the  inheritors  of  the  progress  made  in  the 
art  of  speaking  during  the  age  of  Pericles  and  the  Attic 
school.  A  master  of  these  treasures  of  experience  and 
art,  Æschines  lavishly  resorted  to  them,  and  used  them 
with  a  talent  difficult  to  excel.  Demosthenes,  like  his 
adversary,  sometimes  took  advantage  of  them  under 
the  goad  of  disordered  passions.  But  in  him  the  citizen 
fortunately  governed  the  individual.  His  soul  was 
purged  of  its  impurity  by  the  bitter  toils  of  patriotism, 
he  rose  above  his  rival  with  all  the  superiority  that  the 
heart  has  over  the  mind. 

More  firmly  bound  to  the  laws  of  honor  than  Pytliia 
herself,  and  the  faithful  interpreter  of  Athens,  enslaved, 
but  proud  in  the  midst  of  her  defeat,  when,  after  seven 
years  of  servitude,  she  at  last,  with  the  author  of  the 
Oration  on  the  Crown ,  received  her  revenge  of  Chæ- 
ronea,  Demosthenes,  the  orator  of  duty,  united  in  one 
finished  work  artistic  and  moral  beauty. 

The  galaxy  of  Grecian  orators  terminates  in  him  as 
a  theological  system  carries  in  triumph  the  statue  of 
an  immortal.  Homer  is  the  poet  of  all  poets.  De¬ 
mosthenes  is  eloquence  personified.  Men  desirous  of 
serving  their  country  at  the  tribune  should  study  him 
and  become  imbued  with  his  eloquence,  ever  ancient, 
yet  ever  new. 

Demosthenes  will  therefore  forever  breathe  his  spirit 
and  influence  upon  citizens  burning  to  repel  a  public 
enemy  with  the  sword  of  speech.  He  will  ever  be  the 
law  of  eloquence,*  the  herald  of  national  dignity  and 
liberty. 


*  Quintilian,  x,  1,  Lex  Orandi. 


CHAPTER  II. 


PHILIP— THE  ATHENIANS. 


~WER  tlie  lapse  of  twenty  centuries  the  harangues 


hA  of  Demosthenes  again  delight  the  learned  and 
instruct  the  philosophic  historian.  They  remind  him 
how  the  states  went  to  ruin.  The  orator’s  counsels  and 
reproaches  to  the  Athenians  should  always  be  an  ob¬ 
ject  of  meditation  among  people  who  desire  to  escape 
the  failings  which  destroyed  Greece  forever.  To  thor¬ 
oughly  appreciate  the  power  of  Demosthenes’  eloquence, 
and  the  difficulty  of  the  task  which  he  confronted,  it 
is  necessary  to  have  present  in  our  mind  the  obstacles 
which  accumulated  before  him;  to  be  well  acquainted 
with  the  public  enemy,  Philip,  who  had  also  become 
the  orator’s  private  enemy,  and  with  his  domestic  ad¬ 
versary,  the  Athenian  people,  whose  vices  became  the 
Macedonian’s  allies.  We  will  afterward  see  what 
resources  Demosthenes  could  draw  from  his  soul  and 
genius  to  struggle  against  two  antagonists  equally 
formidable. 


I. 


Philip,  detained  several  years  at  Thebes  as  a  hostage, 
profited  by  his  disgrace,  and  studied,  in  the  heart  of 
Greece,  that  military  art  which  he  afterward  used  so 
skillfully  against  her.  At  the  school  of  the  victor  of 
Leuctra,  Epaminondas,  he  conceived  the  idea  of  the 
Macedonian  phalanx,  formed  on  the  model  of  Thebes’ 
sacred  army,  and  destined  to  play  so  important  a  rôle 
in  history.  Thus  Thebes  educated  the  soldier  who  was 


52 


PHILIP  —  THE  ATHENIANS. 


53 


to  crush  the  liberties  of  Greece  at  Chæronea.  At  the 
head  of  his  phalanx,  Philip  routed  the  cohorts  of  the 
presumptuous  Lysicles,  and  joined  the  victorious  wing 
of  his  son  Alexander.  This  powerful  machine  required 
careful  management,  otherwise  it  was  hut  poorly  adapt¬ 
ed  to  all  kinds  of  action.  Philip  reserved  it  for  decisive 
conflicts.  He  ordinarily  avoided  pitched  battles.  That  he 
might  more  surely  surprise  his  enemy,  instead  of  heavy 
cohorts,  he  advanced  and  retreated  at  the  head  of  a  fly¬ 
ing  camp,  composed  of  archers  and  light  cavalry. 

Alert  and  always  ready — for  he  made  no  distinction 
between  winter  and  summer — he  changed  his  position 
at  will  and  unexpectedly  fell  upon  cities.  The  Athe¬ 
nians  were  not  so  active;  they  consulted  the  aspects  of 
.  the  moon;  they  followed  old  national  customs  which 
were  disregarded  by  this  barbarian  king;  they  only  waged 
war  willingly  during  four  or  five  months  of  fine  weather. 
“Our  century  does  not  at  all  resemble  preceding  cen¬ 
turies,  and  this  is  especially  true  in  the  art  of  war,  be¬ 
cause  it  appears  to  have  had  action  and  progress.  The 
Athenian  strategy  of  the  good  old  times  was  discon¬ 
certed,  scandalized  by  these  innovations  contrary  to  all 
rules  which  had  hitherto  been  respected.  Likewise,  the 
thundering  marches  of  Bonaparte  were  incongruous  to 
the  sentiment  of  the  old  German  generals  who  had 
been  habituated  to  exact  and  methodical  evolutions  and 
to  the  patient  combinations  practiced  during  the  thirty- 
seven  years’  war.  Philip,  like  Cæsar  at  a  later  day, 
believed  he  had  done  nothing  if  anything  remained  for 
him  to  do.  He  well  knew  how  to  prosecute  everything 
with  obstinate  activity,  to  prepare  everything  timely, 
and  to  foresee  everything;  action,  movement,  was  his 
sole  life.  As  a  general,  he  was  diligent  and  inevitable, 


*  Third  Philippic. 


54 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


and  at  all  times  displayed  dauntless  bravery.  Demos¬ 
thenes  paid  him  this  homage: 

“  I  saw  Philip,  our  adversary,  braving  all  dangers  that  he 
might  command  and  become  master;  I  saw  him  deprived  of 
an  eye,  his  shoulder  broken,  his  hand  and  legs  maimed;  I 
saw  him  freely  and  cheerfully  resigning  any  part  of  his  body 
which  fortune  pleased  to  take,  so  that  he  might  enjoy  the  rest 
with  renown  and  glory.”* 

This  passion  for  glory,  which  rendered  Philip  regard¬ 
less  of  his  body  and  life,  made  him  at  a  later  period 
respect  his  vanquished  enemy.  He  was  urged  to 
destroy  Athens.  “May  it  never  please  God,”  he 
responded,  “  that  I  should  destroy  the  theatre  of  glory; 
my  sole  work  is  for  it.” 

He  also  labored  to  satisfy  an  insatiable  ambition;  he 
himself  confessed  it:  “I  am  at  peace  only  with  those 
who  are  willing  to  obey  me.”  This  thirst  for  rule  led 
him  to  carry  his  arms  into  most  opposite  countries, 
from  Phocis  to  the  Danube,  from  the  Hemus  (the  Bal¬ 
kans)  to  Euboea,  from  the  Peloponnesus  to  Byzantium, 
and  even  into  Scythia. 

Master  of  Illyricum,  of  Chalcidice,  of  the  Chersonesus, 
of  Thermopylae,  of  all  the  avenues  of  central  Greece 
north  and  south,  no  aggrandisement  could  satisfy 
him.  “Greece  and  the  barbarian  countries  were  all 
too  narrow  for  the  ambition  of  this  wretched  mortal.” 
In  his  eyes  no  conquest  was  small.  Compelled  to 
withdraw  for  a  moment  from  Athens,  his  most  coveted 
prey,  he  throws  his  army  upon  the  “poor  villages  of 
Thrace,  willing  to  brave  toils,  cold  and  hunger  and 
extreme  dangers  for  such  conquests.  *  *  *x*  That  he 
may  plunder  the  Thracian  vaults  of  their  rye  and  mil- 

*  Pro  Corona ,  §  G7. 


PHILIP - THE  ATHENIANS. 


55 


let,  lie  faces  the  stormy  deep  in  the  midst  of  winter. 
*  *  *  A  miserable  Macedonian,  born  in  a  country 
where  it  is  impossible  to  purchase  even  a  good  slave.” 
He  is  raised  over  Greece,  and  appointed  to  preside  at 
the  Pythian  games,  the  most  august  of  her  national 
solemnities.  He  receives  the  privilege  of  consulting 
the  oracle  first.  Admitted  with  reverence  into  the 
amphictyonie  council,  the  sovereign  arbiter  of  Hellenic 
differences,  the  instrument  of  the  gods’  vengeance  on 
their  profaners,  nothing  satiates  him.  The  undisputed 
ruler  of  all  Greece,  invested  since  Cliæronea  with  the 
hegemony  which  was  formerly  an  object  of  emulation 
among  the  great  cities  of  Greece,  he  will  not  yet  be  at 
ease.  Proclaimed  generalissimo  of  the  eastern  forces 
against  Asia,  he  will  dream  of  the  conquests  reserved 
for  his  son,  and  at  the  moment  of  entering  upon  this 
new  career  a  murderer’s  dagger  will  consign  him,  at 
the  age  of  forty-seven,  to  his  first,  his  last  repose. 
(336  b.c.) 

Philip’s  first  entrance  into  the  government  revealed 
in  him  qualities  characteristic  of  a  great  politician:  he 
became  a  master  of  intrigues,  and  his  intrigues  were 
successful.  At  first,  regent  of  Macedonia  in  the  name 
of  his  nephew,  Amyntas,  he  supplanted  him.  At  the 
age  of  twenty-four,  by  virtue  of  his  address  and  energy, 
sometimes  criminal,  he  succeeded  in  maintaining  him¬ 
self  against  his  enemies  at  home  and  abroad.  Of  this 
number  were  the  Athenians  from  the  origin.  They 
were  the  partisans  of  Argæus,  the  foremost  one  of  his 
competitors  for  the  crown.  The  Greeks  had  long 
wished  to  interfere  in  his  affairs.  He  paid  them  well 
for  it.  Their  covetousness  and  traditional  jealousies 
furnished  arms  against  them,  and  the  artful  Macedo¬ 
nian  used  them  with  success.  He  besieged  Amphipo- 


56 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

lis,  a  position  long  disputed  by  Athens  and  Macedonia. 
The  Athenians  wished  to  aid  it.  Philip  checked  them 
by  promising  that  he  would  surrender  it  to  them  when 
once  captured.  lie  took  it  and  guarded  it.  (358  b.c.) 
A  year  afterward  he  deprived  them  of  Potidæa,  and 
gave  it  to  the  Olynthians,  who  were  then  hostile  to 
Athens.  Later,  Olynthus  was  seized  in  its  turn  (348 
b.c.).  Ilis  device  was  to  take  advantage  of  divisions 
and  conquer  them.  He  saw  that  the  Thessalians,  the 
Thebans,  the  Phocidians,  had  become  suspicious  of  one 
another.  He  duped  them  in  their  turn,  and  subjugated 
them  all,  one  with  the  assistance  of  another.  Against 
Sparta  (for  his  ambitious  activity  embraced  all  Greece) 
he  used  the  interested  intervention  of  Argos  and  Mes- 
sene,  or  the  antipathy  of  the  Arcadians.  He  gave  to 
one  city  what  he  plundered  from  another.  In  this  way 
he  was  assured  of  accomplices.  He  fomented  intestine 
hatreds;  he  baffled  in  advance  all  attempts  at  coalition. 
The  cities,  blinded  by  cupidity  or  municipal  enmities, 
did  not  see  that,  in  exchange  for  trivial  advantages,  — 
guarantees  only  as  real  as  the  rays  of  the  sun  given  to 
the  brothers  of  Perdiccas  by  the  king  of  Sabæa,  — the 
common  enemy  robbed  them  of  their  honor  and  their 
arms.  Philip,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  right  of  contend¬ 
ing  for  the  crowns  at  the  Olympic  games,  proclaimed 
himself  a  descendant  of  Hercules.  He  was  neither  a 
Greek,  nor  allied  to  the  Greeks,  but  worthy  of  being 
such.  He  had  many  qualities  in  common  with  Homer’s 
Ulysses.  He  was  not  only  patient,  inured  to  fatigue, 
but  also  sagacious,  fertile  in  resources,  and  skillful  in 
strategy.  He  could  metamorphose*  himself  and  im¬ 
personate  different  characters.  He  was  a  man  compe¬ 
tent  to  do  everything  (-avoD/^oç),  to  feign  everything. 

*  IIoÀôzÀaÇj  “otzLÀô/j.YjTtç )  TtoAu/JLyjyavuç,  ~oÀôzpo~oç. 


PHILIP  —  THE  ATHENIANS. 


57 


According  to  tlie  state  of  liis  affairs,  he  alternately 
caressed  or  intimidated.  Ilis  speeches  were  spirited 
or  reserved,  even  humble  (especially  after  the  alliance 
of  Athens  and  Thebes).  He  advanced  or  retreated, 
resisted  or  yielded,  at  the  proper  moment. 

Philip  was  a  prudent  politician,  and  practiced  the 
diplomatic  maxim  of  always  giving  the  appearance  of 
right  to  his  own  side;  his  clemency  never  despaired: 
“  Notwithstanding  so  many  provoking  iniquities,  I  have 
respected  your  city,  your  temples,  and  your  territory. 
I  could,  however,  have  taken  much,  even  captured  all. 
I  have  persisted  in  my  desire  to  submit  our  mutual 
complaints  to  a  court  of  arbitration.”  The  duplicity  of 
his  actions  is  especially  apparent  in  his  contest  (always 
disavowed)  against  Athens.  He  has  sworn  to  take  it, 
and,  as  far  as  he  is  able,  from  the  moment  he  steps  on 
Hellenic  ground  he  proclaims  his  friendship  for  the 
city  of  Minerva.  On  all  occasions  he  treats  her  with 
respect,  and  flatters  her.  lie  sends  the  Athenian 
prisoners,  loaded  with  presents,  back  to  the  camp  of 
Argæus;  he  treats  the  Athenian  garrison  of  Potidæa 
with  civility;  later  he  will  promise  to  liberate  the  cap¬ 
tives  of  Olynthus:  “See  how  far  my  good  will  for 
you  goes.  I  have  given  to  you  this  island  (Ilalon- 
nesus)  ;  your  orators  have  not  permitted  you  to  receive 
it.”  After  such  pledges  who  would  dare  distrust 
him?  His  designs  are  innocent;  his  intentions  equit¬ 
able  and  peaceable.  “Let  us  have  peace,”  is  his  cry. 
His  partisans  publish  it;  he  himself  declares  it  in  writ¬ 
ing:  and  therefore  we  doubt  the  sincerity  of  his  desire  ! 
The  Athenians  are  impressed  by  his  peaceful  measures, 
and  observe  the  truce;  Philip  profits  by  it,  and  ad¬ 
vances  his  schemes.  Athens  is  at  peace  with  Philip, 
but  Philip  is  not  at  peace  with  Athens.  While  his 


58 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


abused  enemy  is  disarmed,  the  invader  pursues  his  hos¬ 
tilities;  he  scales  the  ramparts  without  striking  a  blow. 
What  need  has  he  of  violence  when  stratagem  suf¬ 
fices  ?  There  will  always  be  time  enough  to  draw 
the  sword  when  the  adversary,  driven  to  desperation, 
revolts. 

Convicted,  taken  in  the  very  act,  he  still  denies  his 
intentions.  When  necessary  he  affects  a  hypocritical 
devotion  to  the  victims  whom  he  has  already  baffled; 
to  the  unfortunate  Oretians  he  answers: 

“  I  have  sent  my  soldiers  to  visit  you;  it  is  out  of  love  for 
you,  for  I  have  learned  that  you  are  suffering  from  factions; 
the  duty  of  an  ally,  of  a  true  friend,  is  to  present  himself  at 
such  a  crisis.” 

Philip  excelled  in  secret  manœuvres;  in  the  face  of 
hostilities  he  concealed  his  designs  and  retreated;  in 
the  meantime  he  strengthened  himself  little  by  little, 
and  advanced.  As  soon  as  his  knavery  made  him 
master  he  threw  off  the  mask.  No  longer  did  he  offer 
promises  of  friendship  and  protestations  of  innocence, 
but  menacing  reproaches.  Here  are  a  few  extracts 
from  a  letter  of  this  friend  of  Athens. 

“  Notwithstanding  my  frequent  embassies  for  the  main¬ 
tenance  of  our  oaths  and  agreements,  you  have  never  turned 
your  attention  to  this  side  of  the  question.  I  believe,  then, 
I  ought  to  acquaint  you  with  those  points  in  respect  of  which 
I  consider  myself  slighted.  Be  not  at  all  astonished  at  the 
length  of  this  letter:  my  grievances  are  numerous,  and  it  is 
indispensable  that  I  should  explain  myself  clearly  upon  all 
of  them.” 

The  enumeration  of  the  iniquities  of  Athens  follows. 
The  most  grievous  wrong  on  the  part  of  the  city  is  to 
have  at  last  opened  her  eyes,  and  to  have  rendered  war 
in  return  for  war  against  this  honest  neighbor. 


PHILIP - THE  ATHENIANS. 


59 


“  Such  are  my  grievances.  You  are  the  aggressors,  and 
my  moderation  renders  you  bolder,  and  makes  you  more 
eager  to  do  me  all  the  injury  within  your  power.  It  to-day 
becomes  my  duty  to  repulse  you;  I  will  call  the  gods  to  wit¬ 
ness,  and  I  will  settle  the  difficulty.” 

Philip  declared  war  against  the  Athenians  in  this 
message.  For  twelve  years  he  had  been  preparing  for 
war.  Athens  was  his  sole  object.  The  alarms  of 
Athens  increased  in  proportion  as  his  oblique  measures, 
his  winding  marches,  dissimulated  by  pretense  and 
decisions  of  every  kind,  progressed;  but  the  Macedo¬ 
nian’s  oaths  and  machinations  increased  also,  and  the 
city,  not  seeing  the  danger,  remained  inactive.  When 
once  the  adversary  is  at  his  mercy,  Philip  openly  pre¬ 
pares  for  decisive  action;  a  single  blow  remains  to  be 
given,  and  he  feels  himself  the  stronger;  the  key  of 
the  house,  the  house  itself,  is  within  his  reach;  what 
need  has  he  to  play  the  rôle  of  hypocrite  any  longer? 

Philip  knows  where  the  nerve  of  Athenian  power  is 
located:  in  the  preponderance  of  her  naval  forces,  he 
endeavors  to  cause  the  maritime  arsenals  of  the  Piræus 
to  be  burned:  in  the  tributes  accruing  from  her  allied 
islands,  he  makes  an  effort  to  exhaust  this  source  of 
her  revenues.  The  Athenian  piracy  does  great  injury 
to  Philip;  it  impedes  importation  and  exportation  from 
Macedonia:  against  a  pirate  a  pirate  and  a  half.  The 
Macedonian  piratical  boats  proceed  to  enrich  them¬ 
selves  by  plundering  the  allies  of  Athens;  they  fall 
upon  Lemnos,  Imbros,  Gerestos,  and  Marathon,  from 
which  they  take  away  the  sacred  trireme.  Philip,  the 
corsair,  aspires  to  the  guardianship  of  the  sea.  The 
pirates  infest  the  Archipelago  and  the  coasts  of  Asia 
Minor.  Philip  is  to  intervene  and  assist  the  Greeks; 
this  will  give  him  an  opportunity  to  inspect  the  coasts, 


60 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


to  practice  intrigue  among  tlie  islands,  sometimes  to 
take  possession  of  them  (thus  he  takes  the  island  of 
Halonnesns  from  the  pirate  Sostratus);  to  favor  the 
development  of  his  marine,  the  most  cherished  of  his 
aspirations;  and,  under  the  disguise  of  friendly  coop¬ 
eration,  he  will  corrupt  the  allies  of  Athens.  He  fol¬ 
lows  his  adversary  over  all  lands;  like  a  vigilant  senti¬ 
nel  he  watches,  and  attacks  him  on  all  sides;  he  knows 
that  whenever  he  assails  he  cannot  fail  to  injure  and 
finally  to  conquer. 

Philip  is  not  only  a  friend  of  the  Greeks,  but  also 
of  their  gods.  Their  religious  quarrels  during  the  Sa¬ 
cred  War  offer  him  many  an  opportunity  to  become 
obtrusive.  The  pillage  of  the  temple  at  Delphi  (about 
355  b.c.),  and,  later,  the  impiety  of  Cirrlia  in  culti¬ 
vating  a  consecrated  field,  place  a  devout  army  in 
the  hands  of  this  protector  of  religion.  Invested  by 
the  Ampliictyons  with  an  absolute  military  command 
{(jrparrjùy  auroxpdropa),  lie  marches  at  the  head  of  his 
soldiers,  and,  like  them,  encircles  his  head  with  Apol¬ 
lo’s  laurel.  He  is  the  minister  of  the  vengeance  of  the 
god  who  leads  him.  He  writes  to  the  Peloponnesians: 
“With  you  I  wish  to  aid  the  god  and  punish  those 
who  transgress  things  held  sacred  among  men,”  and 
piously  he  keeps  his  word.  Sacrilegious  Phocis  is  de¬ 
livered  to* conflagration,  and  its  inhabitants  to  slaugh¬ 
ter.  The  Cirrliæans,  contemners  of  religious  decrees, 
are  chastised.  All  labor  deserves  its  recompense.  I lis 
first  intervention  opens  to  him  without  a  struggle  the 
pass  of  Thermopylae  (346  b.c.);  the  second,  by  the  cap¬ 
ture  of  Elatea  (339  b.c.),  the  road  to  Attica.  These 
two  thunderbolts  produced  consternation  in  Athens', 
but  did  she  not  know  that  the  gods  protect  the  de¬ 
fenders  of  their  outraged  rights  ? 


PHILIP - THE  ATHENIANS. 


61 


Notwithstanding  this  protection,  Philip  sometimes 
founders.  Checked  the  first  time  at  Thermopylae,  he 
postpones  this  blow.  He  knows  how  to  await.  lie 
could  not  strike  his  enemy  there:  he  hastens  to  meet 
him  in  his  colonies  of  the  Cliersonesus,  and  marks  all 
vulnerable  points.  Beaten  in  Thessaly  by  Onomarchus 
of  Phocis,  he  displays  in  his  defeat  a  new  energy  and 
destroys  his  adversary.  Repulsed  from  Perintlius, 
from  Byzantium,  driven  from  the  Hellespont,,  he  is 
not  discouraged.  Obstinate,  tenacious,  his  eye  fixed 
upon  his  object,  he  changes  his  means  of  attack,  but 
not  the  end.  He  spies  the  shores  of  Greece  as  a  wolf 
prowls  around  a  sheep-fold;  he  explores  Megara,  Am- 
bracia,  and  Euboea.  He  always  appears  at  the  post 
from  which  he  can  best  hold  his  enemy  in  check.  He 
varies  his  line  of  march  that  he  may  baffle  the  sus¬ 
picion  of  wise  prophets.  If  a  fortress  is  impregnable 
*  to  engines  of  war,  he  causes  its  gates  to  fall  before 
“an  ass  laden  with  gold.”  Affable,  eloquent,  capti¬ 
vating  by  his  very  person,  he  can  use  bribery  at  a 
longer  range  than  his  catapults.  The  gold  mines  of 
the  Pangæa,  without  mentioning  those  of  Thessaly  and 
Thrace,  give  him  a  thousand  talents  per  annum.  lie 
employs  them  in  purchasing  Greece,  with  her  generals, 
her  orators,  and  her  oracles.  Among  those  wdio  draw 
salaries  are  skillful  flatterers  who  lull  the  Athenian 
people  to  sleep  by  their  deceptive  promises,  and  who 
extol  their  indolence.  Others  surrender  to  him  their 
troops  or  the  strongholds  which  they  have  promised 
to  defend.  In  this  manner  he  takes  possession  of 
Pydna,  Amphipolis,  and  Olynthus.  He  does  not,  it 
is  true,  always  allow  the  traitors  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of 
their  treason.  His  object  once  accomplished,  he  dis¬ 
cards  them.  He  fears  to  share  the  glory  of  success 


62 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


witli  them;  and  he  is  assured,  notwithstanding  these 
bitter  returns,  that  he  will  never  he  in  want  of  them. 
He  declares  the  man  contemptible  who  sells  himself, 
and  he  does  not  count  on  his  fidelity.  Who  had  sacri¬ 
ficed  the  Hellenic  cause  for  the  profits  of  a  Macedonian 
alliance  more  eagerly  than  the  Thebans?  Neverthe¬ 
less  the  Thebans  one  day  betrayed  him;  nor  did  the 
victor  of  Chæronea  (338  b.c.)  spare  these  deserters. 
He  put  them  to  the  sword  or  sold  them.  Athens,  on 
the  contrary,  alone  of  the  Greek  cities,  always  resisted 
his  offers  and  encroachments.  He  hated  and  esteemed 
her;  he  pursued  her  furiously,  yet  admired  her;  he 
returned  her  prisoners  and  spared  her  the  dishonor 
of  yielding  to  a  Macedonian  garrison.  Was  it  not  as 
great  a  disgrace  to  her  to  be  deprived  of  her  liberty? 

Philip,  in  his  eagerness  to  rule,  appealed  to  the  bad 
instincts  of  human  nature:  jealousy,  cupidity,  in  short 
all  the  infirmities  of  egotism.  He  excelled  in  corrup¬ 
tion,  and, by  his  corruption,  in  conquering.  Violent  and 
perfidious,  mild  and  merciless,  pious  and  cruel,*  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  views  of  his  policy,  disdaining  mankind  as  all 
ambitious  men  have  done,  he  himself  had  his  vices,  but 
instead  of  allowing  them  to  obstruct  his  designs,  he 
turned  them  into  allies  as  efficacious  as  his  good  quali¬ 
ties:  activity,  indefatigable  perseverance,  heroic  valor, 
military  talent,  profoundness  and  versatility,  passion 
for  glory,  and  finally  that  factitious  grandeur  accom¬ 
panying  stupendous  projects  which  were  executed  at 
the  cost  of  an  admirable  unfolding  of  intelligence  and 

*  He  cast  three  thousand  prisoners  of  Pliocis  into  the  sea  out  of 
piety.  In  less  than  three  years  he  destroyed  thirty-two  cities  of  Clial- 
cidice.  At  Olyntlius,  he  gave  liberty  to  some  friends  of  a  Greek 
comedian,  and  killed  his  two  brothers;  he  had  previously  caused  a 
third  to  perish.  ( Justin ,  viii,  3;  ix,  8;  Diodorus  Siculus ,  xvi,  54,  95.) 


PHILIP 


THE  ATHENIANS. 


63 


energy,  but  without  scruple  and  regardless  of  the 
means.  Such  was  Philip,  an  enemy  formidable  in  him¬ 
self  and  strengthened  still  more  by  the  blunders  of  his 
adversaries. 

II. 

After  Mantinea  (361  b.c.),  confusion  and  trouble 
reigned  in  all  Greece  more  than  ever.  Never  did  the 
Hellenic  cities,  not  even  in  the  time  of  the  Persian 
invasions,  form  a  body  of  general  confederation,  capa¬ 
ble  of  uniting  all  the  forces  of  the  country  against  the 
public  enemy.  u  I  do  not  see  the  Greeks  united  by  a 
common  friendship.  There  are  those  who  place  more 
confidence  in  the  enemy  than  in  certain  of  their  own 
body.”  The  envious  rivalries  which  divided  Lacedae¬ 
mon,  Athens  and  Thebes,  omitting  the  cities  which  re¬ 
mained  strangers  to  the  practice  or  even  covetousness 
of  the-  hegemony,  broke  the  union  which  it  had  been  so 
necessary  to  form;  and,  if  patriotism  is  the  sympathy  of 
all  with  all  in  a  common  order  of  ideas  and  sentiments, 
the  object  of  which  is  the  good  of  the  common  country, 
Greece  never  knew  patriotism.  Fear  of  the  invader, 
the  strongest  bond  of  harmony,  never  made  her  entirely 
united  around  a  common  hearth,  as  was  the  Koman 
republic  in  the  face  of  the  Gauls  or  of  Hannibal. 
That  altar  of  Vesta —  a  symbol  of  a  country  one  and 
indivisible;  those  public  penates;  that  temple  of  Jupi¬ 
ter  Capitolinus  —  the  unique  seat  of  the  Homan  empire; 
and  finally  that  strong  cohesion  of  the  whole  people 
united  in  their  convictions  and  faith  in  common  desti¬ 
nies; —  where  could  these  be  found  in  Greece,  with  her 
diversities  or  antipathies  of  race,  and  her  parceling  out 
of  little  personalities,  active  and  vigorous  in  themselves, 
but  weak  as  a  whole  on  account  of  a  distrustful  and 


64 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GEEECE. 


jealous  isolation?  At  Marathon,  Athens  was' alone  in 
line;  Sparta  waited,  before  marching,  until  the  moon 
was  full.  At  Salamis,  Athens  with  her  allies  was 
the  rampart  of  Greece.  At  Platæa,  the  struggle  wras 
sustained  by  the  Athenians,  the  Lacedæmonians,  the 
Tegeatans  and  Megarians,  against  the  Persians  and 
their  Greek  auxiliaries,  among  others  the  Thebans. 
At  Chæronea,  the  last  battle-field  of  liberty,  Athens 
and  Thebes  alone  met  the  enemy.  Laceclæmon  did 
not  even  appear  too  late  then  as  she  had  done  at 
Marathon.  There  was  an  intellectual  Pan-Hellenism 
( rcatôsîa ‘EMyvr/.vj)',  there  was  no  political,  and  even  less 
a  patriotic  Pan-IIellenism.  Greece  was  an  aggregation 
of  egotistical  individualities  incapable  of  disinterested 
sacrifices.  In  the  oration  On  the  Navy  Boards ,  the  ora¬ 
tor  speaks  of  the  design,  ascribed  to  the  great  king,  of 
attacking  Greece:  “He  will  give  gold,  he  will  offer 
his  friendship  to  some,  while  they,  wishing  to  repair 
their  individual  losses,  will  sacrifice  the  common  safety. 
Many  might,  without  the  charge  of  inconsistency,  neg¬ 
lect  the  rest  of  Greece,  while  engaged  in  the  pursuit  of 
private  interests ” ;  and  further:  /“the  Hellenes  might 
wish  to  pi  ace  themselves  on  his  pay-roll,  not  so  much 
to  procure  any  conquests  for  him,  as  to  escape  their 
poverty  and  acquire  a  little  personal  ease.”  Such  are 
the  dispositions  of  the  Greeks  in  respect  to  this  mon¬ 
arch,  “wealthier  himself  than  all  the  Greeks  together, 
and  whose  gold  loads  two  hundred  camels.”  They  will 
be  the  same  toward  Philip,  who  is  less  opulent  but 
more  dexterous.  lie  will  know  how  to  entice  their 
cupidity  and  dupe  them.  Some  will  not  entertain  the 
design  of  giving  him  arms  against  the  Hellenes,  but 
the  crafty  statesman  will  know  how  to  turn  their  pas¬ 
sions  to  his  profit,  even  against  their  will.  Hever  did 


PHILIP  —  THE  ATHENIANS. 


65 


the  Athenians  consent  to  these  shameful  bargains,  even 
by  deceit  ;  but  what  other  advantages  they  allowed 
Philip  to  take  against  them!*  They  dread  Philip  as 
the  enemy,  not  of  their  liberty,  but  of  their  repose. 
Careless,  buoyant,  a  mere  trifle  distracts  them  from 
their  duty.  In  the  midst  of  the  most  important  deliber¬ 
ation,  if  a  child’s  story  had  been  narrated  to  them  they 
would  have  received  extreme  pleasure  from  it.  And 
in  fact  a  short  tale  was  sometimes  necessary  to  compel 
the  frivolous  multitude  to  listen.  Without  being  devoted 
to  laughter  perpetually,  like  the  Tirynthians,  the  happy 
subjects  of  Amphitryon,  who  was  the  king  beloved  of 
Jupiter,  the  Athenians  acquitted  the  greatest  criminals, 
even  when  convicted,  “in  return  for  one  or  two  witty  re¬ 
marks.”  Instead  of  delighting  in  the  reasoning  of  the 
orator,  they  are  carried  away  by  nicknames  and  jokes 
of  which  he  is  the  object  before  the  tribune;  they  turn 
everything  to  pleasantry.  A  rhetorician  at  Olympia 
pledges  them  to  union.  “  This  man  exhorts  us  to  con¬ 
cord,”  remarks  an  auditor,  “  and  in  this  he  cannot  per¬ 
suade  the  three  persons  who  compose  his  household, 
his  wife,  himself  and  his  servant.”  Such  is  the  fruit 
which  they  draw  from  his  harangue.  It  is  necessary 
to  divert  them  in  order  to  win  them.  Leo  of  Byzan¬ 
tium  is  deputed  to  Athens;  he  appears;  a  general 
laughter  welcomes  his  small  stature.  “Ah!  what 
would  you  think,”  says  the  clever  ambassador  to  them, 
“if  you  should  see  my  wife;  she  scarcely  reaches  to 

*  The  author  intended  here  to  portray  only  the  traits  of  Athe¬ 
nian  character  which  pertain  to  this  part  of  his  subject.  A  complete 
portrait  would  be  more  favorable,  and  would  recall  the  canvass  on 
which  Parrliasius  essayed  to  picture  the  contradictory  qualities  of  a 
fantastic  and  unequable  people.  (Pliny,  Natural  History ,  xxxv,  ch. 
36,  §  5.  Cf.  Thucydides,  i,  70  ;  Plato,  Laws,  books  i  and  ii.) 


66 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


my  knee  ”  ?  The  laughter  and  cheers  redouble.  “And 
yet,  as  small  as  we  are,  when  we  have  a  dispute  between 
ns,  Byzantium  is  not  large  enough  to  contain  us.” 
Athenian  gayety  respects  nothing,  not  even  the  venera¬ 
ble  Areopagus.  A  member  of  that  convention,  when 
it  was  assembled  before  the  people,  used,  in  regard  to 
a  decree  of  Timarchus,  and  without  thinking  of  any 
evil,  terms  implying  double  meanings,  in  which  the 
malignity  of  his  audience  saw  an  allusion  to  the  ques¬ 
tionable  houses  which  that  personage  used  to  frequent. 
Several  times  the  hilarity  of  the  public  underlined  cer¬ 
tain  expressions  of  the  honorable  and  candid  orator; 
but  behold,  when,  with  a  deep  tone,  he  entered  into 
details,  the  assembly  no  longer  governed  itself,  it  burst 
out  in  laughter.  The  crier  interceded:  “Do  you  not 
blush  for  laughing  thus  before  the  Areopagus?  ”  What 
could  he  do  ?  The  wanton  laughter  was  like  a  panic, 
irresistible;  and  it  was  not  at  Athens  that  the  people 
thought  of  subduing  it.* 

The  Athenians  were  amused  at  the  disputes  of  their 
orators  as  they  would  be  at  cock-fights.  Demosthenes 
ill  understands  how  to  amuse  them  on  every  occasion. 
He  is  a  water-drinker.  He  constantly  entertains  a 
people  entirely  devoted  to  pleasure  with  their  trouble¬ 
some  duties.  Loving  leisure,  they  passed  their  time 
pleasantly  chatting  in  the  barber’s  or  in  the  perfumer’s 
shop.  Fond  of  news,  they  went  to  and  from  the  agora 
asking  one  another,  What  news?  For  want  of  news 
they  forged  it.  “The  sublimity  of  the  newsmonger  is 
chimerical  reasoning  on  politics  ”  (Labruyère).  The 
Athenians  reasoned,  conjectured,  interpreted  Philip’s 
designs.  They  described  what  he  had  never  done, 
and  refused  to  believe  what  he  was  seen  to  do  every 

*  Æscliines,  Against  Timarchus ,  §  81. 


PHILIP  —  THE  ATHENIANS. 


67 


day.  Each  one  forged  his  own  fable,  scrutinized  the 
future;  no  one  thought  of  his  present  duty.  After 
magnificent  decrees  they  laid  down  their  arms  on  a 
slight  rumor,  just  at  the  time  when  the  report  announc¬ 
ing  Philip’s  death  or  illness  should  have  aroused  them 
to  immediate  action  more  than  ever  before  A"  Always 
with  humor  to  give  in  excess,  they  passed  from  ex¬ 
treme  discouragement  to  extreme  confidence;  from  pre¬ 
sumption  to  despair.  Credulous  to  whosoever  flat¬ 
tered  them,  they  closed  their  ears  to  the  admonitions 
of  Demosthenes;  they  opened  them  with  complaisance 
to  the  pacific  counsels  of  Phocion,  to  the  naïve  illu¬ 
sions  of  Isocrates,  and  to  the  cleverness  of  those  coun¬ 
sellors  of  injustice,  the  detestable  authors  of  belligerent 
motives.  Obstinately  blind,  the  Athenians  found  it 
more  convenient  to  turn  their  eyes  from  danger  than 
to  meet  it. 

Philip  has  seized  Thermopylæ.  At  'this  news  there 
is  great  agitation  in  the  agora.  The  subject  is  dis¬ 
cussed,  accusations  are  made,  the  people  are  excited; 
then,  with  the  aid  of  their  egotism,  they  come  to  tran¬ 
quillizing  reflections.  It  is  still  far  from  Thermopylæ 
to  the  Piræus.  N o  danger  in  delaying.  However,  if 
Philip  has  overleaped  the  rampart  of  Greece,  it  is  for 
the  sole  object, —  he  himself  has  ghren  his  word  for 
it, —  of  concluding  the  Sacred  War,  which  has  stained 
Greece  with  blood  for  more  than  ten  years  (357-346 
B.c.).  Athens  does  not  oppose  these  charitable  meas¬ 
ures.  With  a  light  heart  she  assists  in  the  destruction 
of  the  accursed  Phocidians.  Philip,  master  of  Pliocis, 
descends  toward  the  south.  The  Athenians  are  dis- 

*  In  an  analogous  circumstance,  Phocion  will  tell  them  at  a  later 
time:  “Do  nothing  hastily.  If  Alexander  is  dead  to-day,  he  will  be 
dead  to-morrow  and  the  following  days.” 


68 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


turbed  only  in  a  moderate  degree.  Philip  has  not  yet 
attacked  the  Theban  power.  Now,  Athens  lias  con¬ 
quered  the  Thebans.  Thebes  is  threatened, — Athens’ 
consolation:  since  Mantinea,  Theban  arrogance  has 
humiliated  Athens.  Did  not  Epaminondas  dare  to 
say  to  the  multitude  that  “it  was  necessary  to  trans¬ 
fer  the  Propylæa  of  the  Acropolis  to  the  vestibule  of 
the  Cadmea  ?  ”  And  then  these  Boeotians  are  as  stupid 
and  heavy  as  the  air  that  nourishes  them.  Why  should 
any  one  at  Athens  be  interested  in  people  who  have 
no  spirit  and  character?  Bœotia  is  subjugated,  the 
Thebans  destroyed,  and  the  invader  has  reached  a  new 
halting  place.  Athens  begins  to  take  the  hint.  The 
great  justiciary  of  the  sacrileges  of  Phocis  and  of  The¬ 
ban  insolence  always  advances.  Tie  is  about  to  touch 
the  point.  In  vain  Demosthenes  has  given  the  alarm: 
To  arms,  Athenians  !  Those  machines  erected  against 
Thebes  are  going  to  demolish  your  own  walls.  If 
Bœotia  perishes,  you  will  perish,  for  you  are  the  par¬ 
ticular  men  whom  the  Macedonian  fears  and  wishes  to 
annihilate.  Wealthy  men,  give  your  gold;  wealthy 
and  poor,  mount  your  galleys,  seize  the  oar  and  spear  ! 
-x-  -x-  -x-  Demosthenes,  a  disagreeable  prophet,  an  inex¬ 
orable  patriot,  is  not  listened  to;  for  AEschines  tran¬ 
quillizes  them.  His  brow  is  serene.  He  pronounces 
the  suspicions  of  this  morose  orator  falsehoods  injuri¬ 
ous  to  Philip.  He  advises  the  Athenians  to  spare  their 
money,  their  lives,  and  to  continue  in  the  enjoyment 
of  their  rest.  This  agreeable  language  is  a  feast  for 
them;  and  while  treason  and  violence  pursue  their 
work,  unfortunate  Athens  does  not  stir.  At  the 
most,  she  is  only  agitated,  but  she  does  not  act. 

Too  often  her  movements  are  as  fruitless  for  her  as 
is  her  repose.  She  is  generous,  and  adopts  resolutions 


PHILIP 


THE  ATHENIANS. 


69 


worthy  of  her  in  favor  of  the  oppressed,  but  sue  does 
not  adhere  to  them.  An  orator  proposes  an  expe¬ 
dition.  Act  to-clay ,  cries  the  assembly;  and  neither 
on  this  day  nor  on  the  next  is  anything  accomplished. 
She  votes  forty  triremes  and  sixty  talents.  She  sends 
ten  empty  boats  with  five  talents  of  silver,  and  at 
another  time  “a  general  without  troops,  a  decree  with¬ 
out  force,  and  the  boastings  of  her  tribune.”  She 
wages  against  Philip  a  clamorous  war  of  decrees. 
What  fruit  does  she  derive  from  it  ?  Long  ago  had 
the  Macedonian  been  chastised,  if  the  decrees  had  that 
virtue;  but  in  spite  of  their  zealous  speeches  he  al¬ 
ways  progresses.  The  Athenians  carry  off  the  palm 
for  orations,  Philip  the  palm  for  action.  “  That  Philip, 
a  general  and  soldier,  putting  himself  in  the  fore¬ 
ground,  animating  all  with  his  presence,  losing  no 
opportunity,  not  even  an  instant,  triumphs  over  men 
given  to  delays,  to  decrees,  and  to  conjectures,  I  am 
not  astonished.”  Harangues,  even  those  of  Demos¬ 
thenes,  are  not  sufficient  to  conquer  in  war.  “With¬ 
out  action  all  eloquence  is  powerless,  especially  the 
eloquence  of  Athens;  for  we  pass  for  the  cleverest 
speakers  of  Greece.”  Quick  to  understand  themselves 
and  to  comprehend  the  ideas  of  another,  they  adopt 
resolutions,  but  make  no  effort.  That  people  who 
formerly  aroused  all  Greece  to  defend  the  rights  of 
the  Hellenes,  at  the  very  moment  when  the  people 
themselves  are  plundered,  slumbers,  and  allots  the 
despoiler  to  go  unpunished;  and  yet  she  loves  glory, 
she  admires  the  glory  of  her  ancestors,  and  rejoices  in 
hearing  it  celebrated.  But  she  contents  herself  with 
applauding  her  ancestors,  the  saviors  of  Greece,  with¬ 
out  having  the  courage  to  imitate  them.  At  one  mo¬ 
ment  aroused  (what  apathy  would  not  be  aroused?)  by 


70 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

tlie  eloquence  of  Demosthenes,  she  votes  war  by  ac¬ 
clamation,  but  she  leaves  the  care  of  waging  it  to 
others.  Instead  of  serving  in  person,  the  Athenians 
hire  mercenaries;  good  citizens  as  to  desire  and  inten¬ 
tion,  patriotic  warriors  by  proxy. 

The  time  was  not  long  past  when,  before  a  Spartan 
assembly,  their  enemies  rendered  this  homage  to  the 
Athenians:  u  They  are  prompt  to  imagine  and  to  exe¬ 
cute  what  they  have  conceived.  *  *  *  For  their  country 
they  risk  their  lives  and  expose  their  bodies  as  if  they 
were  of  least  importance  to  them.  *  *  *  They  know 
no  other  pleasure  than  the  accomplishment  of  their 
duty.”*  What  a  contrast  between  the  Athenian  of 
Pericles’  (432)  day  and  the  Athenian  of  Demosthenes’ 
(360)  time!  The  latter  before  all  things  looks  to  his 
own  well-being.  It  is  repugnant  to  him  to  quit  a 
laughing  sky,  the  chats  of  the  Porticos  and  the  Agora, 
the  thousand  artistic  and  literary  amusements  con¬ 
stantly  renewed  in  a  city  not  only  the  school  but  the 
rendezvous  of  pleasure  for  all  Greece,  and  to  go  in  the 
midst  of  winter  into  a  barbarous  climate  to  meet  rude 
soldiers  accustomed  to  dare  everything  and  to  sutler 
everything.  The  enjoyments  of  body  and  mind  to  which 
he  has  habituated  himself  have  rendered  him  unfit 
for  the  severe  toils  of  war.  The  poor  man  is  devoted 
above  all  to  the  three  obols  of  the  tribunals  which 
enable  him  to  live;  to  the  two  obols  which  assure  him 
an  entrance  to  the  theater.  He  repairs  to  the  assembly 
“  as  to  a  feast  at  which  the  scraps  are  to  be  divided.” 
The  wealthy  man  “  measures  happiness  by  the  capacity 
of  his  stomachf  and  by  the  most  shameful  pleasures,” 

*  Thucydides,  i,  70. 

f  What  nonsense  are  you  relating  to  us  here  ?  You  are  talking  for 
pleasure  :  Lyceum,  Academy,  Odeum,  Thermopylae,  the  nonsense  of 


PHILIP 


THE  ATHENIANS. 


71 


without  any  regard  for  the  happiness  of  serving  no 
master,  “  an  advantage  once  esteemed  in  Greece  the 
greatest  and  highest  degree  of  felicity.”  It  is  suffi¬ 
cient  to  say  that  the  wealthy  and  poor  are  ill-disposed 
to  expose  their  bodies  to  that  monstrous  beast,  all 
bristling  with  iron,  which  is  called  the  Macedonian 
phalanx.  They  reserve  themselves  for  more  agreeable 
contests.  Instead  of  fighting  Philip,  they  fight  their 
counsellors  and  generals. 

“Is  it  the  author  of  your  misfortunes  that  you  hate  ? 
]STo,  it  is  the  citizen  who  has  spoken  to  you  of  them 
last,”  when  he  was  about  to  offer  a  remedy  for  an  evil 
of  which  he  himself  was  innocent.  A  military  enter¬ 
prise  has  failed.  A  speaker  attributes  its  failure  to 
Diopithes,  Chares  and  Aristophon.  The  crowd  ex¬ 
claim  “he  is  right!”  and  the  general  is  summoned  to 
trial.  “  Brave  to  condemn,  cowards  to  act,”  they  hold 
him  responsible  for  their  own  faults;  or,  if  he  himself 
has  committed  any,  they  punish  him  with  a  severity 
which  they  could  use  to  a  better  purpose  against  the 
great  criminal,  Philip.  What  is  the  result  of  these 
injustices  or  excessive  severities  ?  The  generals  desert 
Athens.  Each  one  of  them  in  all  security  goes  to  wage 
war  where  his  interests  call  him.*  Thus  the  Athenians 
do  the  work  of  their  enemy,  not  their  own. 

sophists.  I  see  nothing  in  these  worth  our  attention.  Let  us  drink, 
Scion,  let  us  drink  to  excess  and  make  life  happy  as  long  as  opportu¬ 
nity  and  means  permit.  Join  in  the  uproar,  Manes;  nothing  is  dearer 
than  the  stomach.  The  stomach  is  your  father,  the  stomach  is  your 
mother.  Virtues,  embassies,  commands,  vain  glory,  vain  turmoil  of 
the  land  of  dreams.  Death  will  strike  )rou  on  the  day  marked  by  des¬ 
tiny.  There  will  remain  to  you  only  what  you  shall  have  drank  and 
eaten.  The  rest  is  dust.  Dust  is  Pericles,  Codrus,  Cimon.”  (Alexis,  The 
Lord  of  Debauchery,  frag,  of  the  Comic  Poets.  Cf.  Plutarch,  Moralia.) 

*  ThusTimotheus  and  Chabrias  sold  their  services  to  Persia  against 
Egypt;  Chares  became  a  lieutenant  to  Artabazus;  Iphicrates  con- 


72 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


What  shall  we  say  concerning  the  election  of  magis¬ 
trates  ?  Socrates  and  his  followers  in  general  were  not 
very  sympathetic  with  Athenian  democracy.  Socrates 
dared  to  ridicule  u  the  fullers,  shoemakers,  masons, 
coppersmiths,  petty  tradesmen  and  peddlers, —  all  im¬ 
portant  personages  of  whom  the  assembly  of  the  people 
was  composed.”  Politics  was,  in  his  eyes,  a  compli¬ 
cated  science,  as  virtue  itself  was  an  art.  Was  the 
ignorant  multitude  capable  of  arriving  at  the  one  or 
the  other  ? 

Montesquieu  is  more  indulgent. 

“  The  people  are  admirable  to  choose  those  to  whom  they 
are  to  entrust  any  authority.  They  have  only  to  deter¬ 
mine  from  the  nature  of  things  which  they  cannot  be  igno¬ 
rant  of,  and  from  facts  which  fall  under  their  knowledge. 
They  know  very  well  that  a  man  has  often  been  in  war;  that 
he  has  had  such  or  such  success.  They  are  then  very  capable 
of  choosing  a  general.  They  know  that  a  judge  is  assiduous; 
that  many  classes  go  away  from  his  tribunal  satisfied  with 
him;  that  he  has  not  been  convicted  of  corruption.  This  is 
enough  to  choose  a  pretor.  They  have  been  struck  with  the 
magnificence  or  wealth  of  a  citizen;  this  is  sufficient  to  choose 
an  ædile.  All  these  things  are  facts  of  which  they  can  better 
inform  themselves  in  public  places  than  can  a  monarch  in  his 
palace.”* 

The  Athenians,  if  Demosthenes  is  to  be  credited,  ill 
justify  the  good  opinion  which  Montesquieu  has  in  this 
respect.  They  give  offices  to  the  wealthiest,  not  to  the 
most  worthy,  j*  They  name  their  political  or  military 

ducted  twenty  thousand  Greek  mercenaries  to  Artaxerxes;  the  old 
pirate  Charidemus  gained  possession  of  small  cities  on  the  coasts  of 
Asia,  and  reigned  there. 

*  Esprit  des  Lois ,  ii,  2. 

f  Demosthenes,  In  Midiam ,  passim. 


PHILIP - THE  ATHENIANS. 


73 


leaders  with  as  much  levity  as  their  priests.  It  should 
be  required,  for  example,  that  a  cavalry  general  could 
hold  himself  in  his  saddle.  How  Midias,  promoted  to 
this  dignity,  cannot,  even  in  the  solemn  processions, 
becomingly  cross  the  public  place  on  a  horse.  With 
such  aptitudes  for  positions  due  to  intrigue,  what  won¬ 
der  if,  on  the  day  of  action,  these  incapable  aspirants 
use  every  evasion  to  escape  the  obligations  of  their 
duty  ?  They  have  coveted  dignity.  They  no  longer 
wish  office  if  it  threatens  to  become  effective.  If  they 
decree  to  send  out  cavalry,  the  cavalry  general  sud¬ 
denly  becomes  enamored  of  the  sea  and  runs  to  the 
triremes.  If  a  naval  expedition  is  decided  upon,  they 
must  wait  until  the  sailors  rejoin  their  squadron. 

u  How  does  it  happen  (Isocrates,  after  a  severe  crit¬ 
icism  of  the  political  customs  of  the  Athenians,  puts 
this  objection  into  the  mouth  of  a  contradictor)  that 
with  a  similar  conduct  we  are  not  destroyed,  not  even 
inferior  in  power  to  any  city  ?  ”  It  is  because  the 
enemies  of  Athens,  the  Thebans  and  Lacedæmonians, 
are  no  longer  discreet.  Athens  has  for  a  long  time 
owed  the  maintenance  of  her  prosperity  to  the  faults  of 
her  adversaries.  With  Philip  it  must  be  otherwise. 
The  king  of  Macedonia  was  not  a  man  who  would  be 
apt  to  become  an  instrument  of  success  for  the  Athe¬ 
nians. 

“  To  such  circumstances  are  you  reduced  by  your  supine¬ 
ness,  that  I  fear  (shocking  as  it  is  to  say  it)  that,  had  we  all 
agreed  to  propose,  and  }rou  to  embrace,  such  measures  as 
would  most  effectually  ruin  our  affairs,  the}r  could  not  have 
been  more  distressed  than  at  present.  At  present  your  con¬ 
duct  must  expose  you  to  derision.  Nay,  I  call  the  powers  to 
witness  that  }mu  are  acting  as  if  Philip’s  wishes  were  to 
direct  you.  Opportunities  escape  you;  your  treasures  are 
4 


74 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


wasted;  you  shift  the  weight  of  public  business  upon  others; 
break  into  passion;  criminate  each  other.”* 

Instead  of  adopting  measures  most  agreeable  to  the 
enemy,  why  do  they  not  hasten  to  do  what  he  would 
not  fail  to  do  were  he  in  their  place  ?  But  their  char¬ 
acters  are  very  different.  Philip  deliberates  upon  the 
future;  the  Athenians  quarrel  over  the  past.  Philip 
anticipates  emergencies;  the  Athenians  follow  him  as 
if  towed. 

“  Just  as  barbarians  engage  at  boxing,  so  you  make  war 
with  Philip;  for,  when  one  of  these  receives  a  blow,  that 
blow  engages  him  ;  if  struck  in  another  part,  to  that  part  his 
hands  are  shifted;  but  to  ward  off  the  blow,  or  to  watch  his 
antagonist,  for  this  he  hath  neither  skill  nor  spirit.  Even 
so,  if  you  hear  that  Philip  is  in  the  Chersonesus,  you  resolve 
to  send  forces  thither;  if  in  Thermopylae,  thither;  if  in  any 
other  place,  you  hurry  up  and  down;  you  follow  his  stand¬ 
ard.  But  no  useful  scheme  for  carrying  on  the  war,  no  wise 
provisions,  are  ever  thought  of,  until  you  hear  of  some  enter¬ 
prise  in  execution,  or  already  crowned  with  success.  This 
might  formerly  have  been  pardonable,  but  now  is  the  very 
critical  moment  when  it  can  by  no  means  be  admitted.”! 

The  Athenians  are  absolutely  wanting  in  the  justly 
appreciated  quality  of  the  Greeks, —  opportuneness 
(< zb-/.aipia)\  they  do  everything  at  the  wrong  time,  too 
late  or  too  early.  u  The  people  always  have  too  much 
or  too  little  to  do.  Sometimes,  with  one  hundred  thou¬ 
sand  arms,  they  overthrow  everything;  sometimes, 
with  a  hundred  thousand  feet,  they  only  go  like  in¬ 
sects.”  $ 

“And  now,  Athenians!  what  is  the  reason  (think  ye)  that 
the  public  festivals  in  honor  of  Minerva  and  of  Bacchus  are 

*  Third  and  Fourth  Philippics ,  §§  1,  20. 
f  First  Philippic ,  §  40.  \  Esprit  des  Lois ,  ii,  2. 


PHILIP 


THE  ATHENIANS. 


75 


always  celebrated  at  the  appointed  time,  whether  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  them  falls  to  the  lot  of  men  of  eminence  or  of  persons 
less  distinguished  (festivals  which  cost  more  treasure  than  is 
usually  expended  upon  a  whole  navy,  and  more  numbers 
and  greater  preparations  than  any  one  perhaps  ever  cost); 
while  your  expeditions  have  been  all  too  late.  The  reason 
is  this:  everything  relating  to  the  former  is  ascertained  by 
law,  and  every  one  of  you  knows  long  before  who  is  to  con¬ 
duct  the  several  entertainments  in  each  tribe,  what  he  is  to 
receive,  when  and  from  whom,  and  what  to  perform.  Not 
one  of  these  things  is  left  uncertain,  not  one  undetermined. 
But  in  affairs  of  war  and  warlike  preparations  there  is  no 
order,  no  certainty,  no  regulation.  So  that  when  any  acci¬ 
dent  alarms  us,  first  we  appoint  our  trierarchs  ;  then  we  allow 
them  the  exchange;*  then  the  supplies  are  considered.  These 
points  once  settled,  we  resolve  to  man  our  fleet  with  strangers 
and  foreigners,  then  find  it  necessary  to  supply  their  places 
ourselves.  In  the  midst  of  these  delays,  what  we  are  sailing 
to  defend  the  enemy  is  already  master  of;  for  the  time  of 
action  we  spend  in  preparing,  and  the  junctures  of  affairs  will 
not  wait  our  slow  and  irresolute  measures.  These  forces, 
too,  which  we  think  may  be  depended  on  until  the  new  levies 

are  raised,  when  put  to  the  proof,  plainly  discover  their  in- 

« 

sufficiency.”! 

Omitting  the  vices  of  the  military  and  financial  or¬ 
ganization,  the  Athenian  always  depends  upon  his 
neighbor.  +  He  wrould  like  to  apj3ly  the  law  to  his 

*  ’Ai/rcôoffcç.  Every  citizen  who  believed  himself  taxed  unduly 
or  to  excess  had  the  right  of  demanding  that  a  wealthier  man  should 
be  charged  with  his  liturgy.  If  the  latter  refused  under  pretext  that 
his  resources  did  not  permit  him  to  do  it,  the  law  compelled  him  to 
exchange  his  goods  for  those  of  the  demander, —  a  law  equitable  in 
principle,  but  a  source  of  delay  and  of  debates  very  prejudicial  to  the 
harmony  of  the  city  and  to  the  promptitude  of  military  operations. 

t  First  Philippic,  §  35. 

X  Cf.  Aristophanes,  The  Assembly  of  the  Women ,  the  law  of  com¬ 
munism  in  theory  and  practice. 


76 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


neighbor  and  be  exempt  from  it  himself.  He  indif¬ 
ferently  comes  to  the  place  of  action  at  the  latest 
possible  moment,  in  the  hope,  secretly  caressed,  of 
escaping  from  a  painful  duty.  We  see  how  at  Pydna, 
Potidæa,  Methone,  Pagasse,  they  arrive  just  in  time  to 
witness  Philip’s  triumphs  and  their  own  confusion. 
“Can  the  people  conduct  an  undertaking,  know  the 
places,  opportunities,  moments,  and  profit  by  them  ? 
No,  they  cannot,”*  and  the  Athenians  less  than  all 
others.  All  at  Athens  is  capricious,  tumultuous;  no 
decided  impulsion,  no  regular  counsels,  no  unique  au¬ 
thority.  All  is  done  by  intermittent  passion,  by  jerks 
and  twitches.  How  different  it  is  with  the  despotic 
invader  !  His  finances  are  in  a  sound  condition,  his 
veteran  soldiers  always  under  arms.  What  he  judges 
proper  to  do  he  does  immediately,  without  public  de¬ 
liberation  or  a  proclamation  of  decrees.  He  is  neither 
calumniated  before  the  tribunals,  nor  accused  as  a 
transgressor  of  laws,  nor  amenable  in  person;  but 
everywhere  a  universal  arbiter  and  an  absolute  master. 
In  the  face  of  such  an  adversary  what  do  we  see  ?  A 
people  aggravating  by  the  disorder  of  the  time,  one  of 
the  vices  connected  with  the  democratic'  constitution, 
a  multitude  “blinded,  as  it  seems,  by  an  evil  spirit,” 
an  “old  man  in  delirium  tremens,”  as  jEs chines  ex¬ 
presses  it. 

In  Aristophanes  the  favored  orators  of  the  people 
cajole  and  dupe  them;  in  the  time  of  Philip  they  flat¬ 
ter  and  betray  them.  The  spirit  of  vengeance  forced 

*  Esprit  des  Lois ,  ii,  2;  cf.  v,  10,  De  la  Promptitude  de  V Execution 
dans  la  Monarchie:  “Cardinal  Richelieu,  wishes  the  people  to  shun 
the  thorns  of  societies  in  monarchies,  societies  which  form  difficul¬ 
ties  for  everything.  Although  the  cardinal  could  not  have  had  des¬ 
potism  in  his  heart,  he  might  have  had  it  in  his  head.” 


PHILIP 


THE  ATHENIANS. 


77 


Alcibiades  to  desert  liis  country.  The  ambitious  fugi¬ 
tive  wished  to  punish  her  for  her  intended  ingrati¬ 
tude,  and  employed  against  her  the  talents  for  which  he 
deemed  himself  poorly  paid.  Then,  when  the  chas¬ 
tisement  was  consummated,  he  returned  to  her  and 
was  loved,  inasmuch  as  he  had  caused  her  to  feel  the 
value  of  his  favors.  The  return  of  the  victor  was  a 
triumph.  “The  Athenians  lauded  what  he  had  done 
for  the  city,  and  did  not  admire  less  what  he  had  done 
against  her.”  During  the  Macedonian  epoch  duties 
toward  the  country  were  no  better  known,  and  forfeit¬ 
ures  arose  from  a  source  more  impure  than  from  the 
wounds  of  pride, — -from  venality.  “A  contagion,  a 
terrible  and  cruel  pest,  came  and  spread  over  Greece.” 
Magistrates  and  private  citizens  emulously  called  for 
the  Macedonian’s  gold  and  servitude.  The  epidemic 
at  first  reached  Thessaly,  penetrated  the  Pelopon¬ 
nesus,  “provoked  the  massacres  of  Elis,  and  became 
intoxicated  with  a  furious  madness  of  the  pitiable 
classes  who,  in  order  to  elevate  themselves  one  over 
another,  while  extending  their  hands  to  Philip  became 
covered  with  the  blood  of  their  relatives  and  citizens.” 
Far  from  resting  here,  the  scourge  gained  Arcadia  and 
Argolis,  and  finally  crept  into  Athens.  “Whilst  it 
has  not  yet  spread,  watch  over  yourselves,  Athenians, 
stigmatize  those  who  have  imported  it.  Else  fear  lest 
you  may  recognize  the  utility  of  my  counsels  when  a 
remedy  shall  have  become  impossible.”*  The  disease, 
pointed  out  in  vain  in  342  b.c,,  continued  to  spread; 
the  orator  of  the  Oration  on  the  Grown  (330  b.c.) 
should  have  recalled  the  sad  effects  of  it.  In  this  re¬ 
spect  the  Athenians  might  have  received  lessons  from 
the  Spartans.  Pausanias  sacrificed  the  interests  of 

*  Demosthenes  On  the  Embassy,  §  251). 


78 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Lacedaemon  to  the  favor  of  Xerxes.  Convicted  by  the 
ephors  he  fled  into  the  temple  of  Minerva.  Ilis  mother 
was  the  fifst  to  place  a  stone  at  the  door  and  shut  him 
in.  Athens  did  not  consider  things  so  seriously.  Are 
Philip’s  friends  really  traitors?  Some  call  them  pro¬ 
moters  of  peace,  saviors  and  champions  of  the  true 
interests  of  the  state,  as  were  Fouché  and  the  auxil¬ 
iaries  of  the  allies  in  1815.  The  Athenians  forgot  to 
distinguish  between  the  sincere  citizen  who  was  de¬ 
ceived  and  the  egotist  who  thought  more  of  himself 
than  of  the  republic.  Formerly  Arthmius  of  Zelia,  an 
Asiatic  city,  brought  gold  from  the  Persians  into  the 
Peloponnesus.  The  ancestors  of  those  Athenians  who 
were  fighting  Philip  declared  him  an  enemy,  himself 
and  his  race  infamous,  and  considered  him  an  outlaw. 
At  another  time  the  Athenians,  jealous  guardians  of 
the  dignity  and  safety  of  Greece,  engraved  upon  bronze 
the  infamy  of  corrupters.  How  times  have  changed! 
u  Envy  toward  him  whom  gold  has  seduced;  jests  and 
laughter  if  he  confesses  it;  pardon  if  he  is  convicted; 
hatred  against  his  accuser.”*  Such  were  the  senti¬ 
ments  awakened  by  the  traffic  of  the  country.  Is  it 
astonishing  after  this  that  the  Macedonians  in  the  Pi¬ 
raeus  multiplied,  and,  shielded  from  contempt,  exhibited 
for  sale  a  shameles  simony?  Votes,  decrees,  admin¬ 
istration,  war,  finances,  —  they  sold  everything  in  full 
market,  and  preached  peace  for  ready  cash.  They 
vied  in  their  emulation  to  become  purchasers. 

“  Philip  was  not  satisfied  with  hearing  the  traitors’  propo¬ 
sitions,  and  he  did  not  know  what  prey  to  seize  first.  He 
took,  in  one  day,  five  hundred  horsemen  with  their  arms, 
delivered  up  to  him  by  the  leaders  themselves,  a  capture 
hitherto  unequaled.  The  light  of  day,  the  soil  beneath  their 


*  Third  Philippic ,  §  39. 


PHILIP 


THE  ATHENIANS. 


79 


feet,  temples,  tombs, —  the  guilty  traitors  regarded  nothing,  not 
even  the  reputation  which  was  to  shed  infamy  upon  such 
acts.  Such  great  venality,  Athenians,  strikes  men  with  de¬ 
rangement  and  madness!” 

Philip,  it  is  true,  neglected  no  opportunity,  as  he 
did  at  Dium  after  the  capture  of  Olynthus,  to  display 
a  liberal  magnificence  by  which  the  greedy  poverty  of 
the  Greeks  was  dazzled  and  enticed.  Atlienæus*  has 
transmitted  to  us  the  description  of  a  feast  at  a  Mace¬ 
donian  wedding,  so  sumptuous  and  splendid  that  it 
might  render  Trimalcion  jealous.  Caranus’  guests  re¬ 
turn  from  the  banquet  not  only  deliciously  feasted,  but 
loaded  with  gold  and  silver  plate,  enriched  for  life. 
Let  an  Athenian  now  come  and  talk  to  them  of  the 
meager  fare  of  his  feasts;  they  will  send  him  back  ridi¬ 
culed  to  his  rockets  and  onions.  We  do  not  know  the 
bill  of  fare  of  the  banquets  offered  by  Philip  to  his 
hosts  from  Athens,  but  his  liberalities  are  known  to  us. 
One  brings  back  from  Macedonia  timber  to  cover  his 
house,  another  sheep  and  horses;  for  the  most  skillful 
artisans  the  highest  salary.  Pliilocrates,  the  principal 
author  of  the  fatal  peace,  which  took  its  name  from 
him  (347  b.c.),  received  lands  whose  revenue  was  a 
talent,  besides  the  grain  and  gold  with  which  he  openly 
carried  on  commerce  on  the  bankers’  tables  in  the 
Agora.  lie  brought  back  from  Olynthus  freed  women, 
captives  to  gratify  his  pleasures,  and  besides  this  he 
was  seen  going  the  rounds  of  the  market,  and,  a  fine 
connoisseur,  u  purchasing  women  and  fish.”  Demos¬ 
thenes  has  named  several  of  these  traffickers  of  the  Hel¬ 
lenic  family  whose  eloquence  had  a  fixed  tariff.  “  The 
day  would  fail  me  if  I  should  recount  their  names.” 
He  paints  the  least  shameless  of  those  who  realized 


*  Banquet  of  the  Sophists,  iv,  2. 


80 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


their  fortunes  of  real  estate  and  retired  into  Mace¬ 
donia.  He  also  represents  those  traitors  in  Macedonia 
who  betrayed  their  country,  seated  at  Philip’s  table  with 
cup  in  hand,  drinking  the  public  liberty.  Such  charac¬ 
ters  justified  the  insulting  contempt  of  the  princely 
purchaser  of  Greece.  See  in  what  a  strain  he  speaks 
of  the  few  orators  who  remained  faithful.  “It  would 
be  easy  for  me,  by  throwing  a  little  gold  before  them, 
to  check  their  censures  and  convert  them  into  eulogies; 
but  I  would  blush  to  be  seen  purchasing  the  friendship 
of  such  men.”*  They  likewise  justify  this  cry  of 
Demosthenes:  “  We  have  inured  a  formidable  enemy 
against  ourselves.  Let  whoever  denies  it  appear  be¬ 
fore  me  and  say  where  Philip  derived  his  power  if  it 
was  not  in  the  heart  of  Athens.  ”  In  fact,  did  not  Athens 
send  him  deputies  who  were  emulous  to  deprecate 
their  country  before  him?  “The  people,  a  restless  mul¬ 
titude,  are  the  least  stable,  the  most  vacillating,  of  all 
things.  They  are  like  the  waves  of  the  sea  which  a 
slight  breeze  agitates:  one  comes,  another  goes  away; 
no  one  cares  nor  studies  public  affairs.  It  therefore 
behooves  you  to  have  friends  at  Athens  who  will  do 
and  regulate  all  according  to  your  will.  Take  care  of 
this  support  and  among  the  Athenians  you  will  make 
all  yield  to  your  pleasure,  f  Philip  was  careful  not  to 
allow  these  charitable  encouragements  to  pass  gratui¬ 
tously.  It  was  far  less  expensive  for  him  to  hire  a 
few  men  than  to  conciliate  the  entire  city  by  honorable 
means.  In  this  way  he  succeeded  well. 

The  same  tongues  calumniated  Athens  in  Philip’s 
presence  and  exalted  Philip  himself  before  the  Athe¬ 
nians.  Ho,  never  was  man  seen  “so  gracious,  so 

*  On  the  Embassy ,  passim. 

f  Demosthenes,  On  the  Embassy ,  §  136. 


PHILIP  —  THE  ATHENIANS. 


81 


amiable  lie  was  gallant,  lie  was  eloquent,  lie  was  the 
“most  Grecian”  of  those  who  were  not  Greeks,  and 
what  a  drinker!  They  did  not  add  that  this  accom¬ 
plished  prince  was  an  excellent  payer,  but  the  Athe¬ 
nians,  when  advised,  discovered  it.  Thanks  to  the 
connivance  of  these  allies,  he  deferred  the  oaths  which 
were  at  some  time  to  bind  his  hands,  for  three  whole 
months.  In  the  mean  time,  he  pilfered  and  appropri¬ 
ated  on  all  sides;  he  esteemed  as  a  good  capture  what¬ 
ever  he  could  possess  before  signing  the  peace. 

It  was  still  in  the  heart  of  Athens  that  he  found  accom¬ 
plices  always  ready  to  become  the  echo  of  his  fallacious 
promises,  sometimes  even  to  exceed  them.  This  was  ap¬ 
parent  after  the  treaty  and  peace  of  347  b.c.,  from  which 
Philocrates,  Æschines  and  their  associates  perfidiously 
allowed  the  Phocians  to  be  excluded,  against  the  will 
of  Athens.  IIow  could  the  people  escape  becoming 
the  laughing-stock  of  their  machinations  ?  Sent  to 
Philip  in  order  to  treat  with  him  directly,  and  to  exam¬ 
ine  on  the  spot  the  true  state  of  things,  they  were  the 
sole  official  authority  to  decide:  their  falsehoods  were 
dexterously  colored,  and  enforced  belief.  Contemporary 
history  has  presented  certain  examples  of  these  decep¬ 
tions  of  a  nation  by  ministers  employed  to  enlighten  it, 
and  throwing  it  into  fatal  adventures  when  misguided 
by  forged  declarations.  “Yes,”  said  Æschines, 
“  Philip  has  passed  Thermopylæ.  What  signifies  ?  Do 
not  be  alarmed,  all  will  go  according  to  our  wishes  ; 
in  two  or  three  days  you  will  learn  that  he  has  become 
the  enemy  of  those  whose  friend  he  appeared,  and  the 
friend  of  those  whose  enemy  he  proclaimed  himself.” 
Athens  was  often  deceived  by  these  phantasmagorias 
of  her  orators,  but  she  was  also  often  the  victim  of  her 
own  illusions,  and  of  faults  attributable  to  herself. 


82 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


She  had  a  right  to  cry  out  treason;  hut  did  not  the 
entire  people  betray  themselves  by  their  weakness  and 
follies  ? 

“Oh,  gods!  we  have  suffered  all  these  plunders;  we  have, 
if  I  dare  say  it,  cooperated  with  him  in  them,  and  now  we 
will  seek  the  authors  of  our  misfortunes!  for  I  know  too  well 
we  will  take  care  not  to  confess  ourselves  guilty.  In  the 
perils  of  war  no  fugitive  accuses  himself,  but  always  his  gen¬ 
eral,  his  comrade;  he  accuses  all  rather  than  himself;  never¬ 
theless  all  the  fugitives  cause  the  rout.  This  accuser  of 
another  could  have  held  his  ground  firmly,  and  if  each  had 
held  firmly,  they  would  not  have  been  vanquished/’* 

Never,  indeed,  did  Athens  accuse  Demosthenes: 
this  was  justice.  No  man  was  more  passionately  de¬ 
voted  to  the  difficult  work  of  the  common  safety.  In 
Philo’s  time,  Athens  numbered  as  many  citizens  (about 
twenty  thousand)  as  in  the  days  when  she  repulsed  the 
barbarians,  and  disputed  the  empire  with  Lacedæmon; 
she  had  preserved  her  numerical  forces,  but  not  her 
valor.  Let  us  now  see  what  resources  Demosthenes, 
the  citizen,  the  statesman  and  the  orator,  used  in  his 
endeavor  to  restore  her  valor  and  thus  save  her  liberty. 


*  Third  Olynthiac ,  §  17. 


CHAPTER  III. 


DEMOSTHENES  — THE  MAN  — THE  CITIZEN. 

“Tou-  ye  y.aO 1  aurov  p-grapaz  {e’^oj  ôè  Xôyoo  rtOep.at  (Ptox{cova) 
xai  rip  ftup  - aprjXOs :  “He  was  the  most  upright  of  the  orators  of 
his  time,  excepting  Pliocion.”  (Plutarch,  Life  of  Demosthenes.) 

“  My  character  lias  never  been  compromised.  I  was  never  known 
to  prefer  the  favor  of  the  great  to  the  rights  of  the  people.  And,  in 
the  affairs  of  Greece,  the  bribes  and  flattering  assurances  of  friend¬ 
ship  which  Philip  lavished  never  were  so  dear  to  me  as  the  interests 
of  the  Hellenes.”  ( Oration  on  the  Crown.) 

IN’  Demosthenes,  the  citizen,  the  statesman,  and  the 
orator,  were  equal  to  the  task  which  he  volun¬ 
tarily  imposed  upon  himself.  Before  entering  upon 
his  political  career,  the  young  son  of  a  sword-cutler 
was  in  danger  of  being  deprived  of  his  inheritance, 
and  said  to  the  judges:  u  You  have  not  yet  put  me 
to  trial,  and  do  not  know  what  I  can  do  for  the  state; 
but,  may  I  hope,  I  will  not  be  of  less  service  to  it  than 
my  father  was.”*  This  modest  prevision  of  the  young 
man  of  nineteen  years  was  more  than  justified.  Forty 
years  later  the  patriotic  exile  could  write  to  his  citizens, 
in  demanding  of  them  a  reexamination  of  his  trial:  “I 
yield  to  no  one  in  affection  for  the  people.  Hot  one 
of  my  contemporaries  has  done  more  for  you,  none 
given  more  proofs  of  his  devotion.” f 

*  Second  Pleading  against  Aphobus ,  §  22. 

f  Second  letter  of  Demosthenes,  fin.  Some  moderns  have  dis¬ 
puted  the  authenticity  of  these  letters  recognized  by  Cicero.  We 
accept  them  as  a  faithful  proof  of  the  sentiments  of  ancient  Greece 
toward  their  patriotic  orator. 


83 


I 


84  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

I.  The  Man. — Demosthenes  had  from  his  youth 
given  proof  of  a  character  fitted  for  strife.  The  ath¬ 
lete,  who  was  destined  some  day  to  bear  up  against 
Philip  with  all  his  strength,  had  first  tested  his  powers 
on  himself.  Less  fortunately  endowed  than  some  of 
his  rivals  in  elocpience,  he  resolved  to  repair  nature’s 
work  and  to  remake  himself.  His  obstinacy  remained 
ruler.  This  tenacious  firmness,  perpetuated  in  legend 
like  all  that  strikes  man’s  imagination,  permitted  Va¬ 
lerius  Maximus  to  say:  “If  his  mother  brought  one 
Demosthenes  to  light,  art  begat  another  with  toil.”* 
Æschines  several  times  rebuked  Demosthenes  with  the 
title  of  Scythian.  “Demosthenes  is  neither  of  our 
soil  nor  of  our  race.  *  *  *  On  his  mother’s  side  he  is 
a  Scythian,  a  barbarian,  a  Greek  only  in  language,  his 
heart  is  too  perverse  to  be  an  Athenian.”  His  grand¬ 
mother,  in  fact,  was  a  woman  from  the  Bosphorus. 
The  stiffness  of  his  character,  wanting  in  Athenian 
flexibility  and  playfulness,  was  due,  perhaps,  to  the 
influence  of  his  maternal  blood.  At  all  events,  his 
youth  was  not  in  every  respect  similar  to  that  of  the 
sons  of  Athenian  families,  but  more  wTortliy,  in  cer¬ 
tain  respects,  of  the  young  Anacharsis.  Llis  midnight 
studies  remain  celebrated.  Who  is  ignorant  of  them  \ 
Says  the  author  of  the  Tusculcince  Disjmtationes  : 
“He  was  grieved  if  it  happened  that  an  artisan  began 
work  earlier  than  himself.  ”  f  According  to  his  own 
testimony  he  became  an  orator  by  using  more  oil  than 
wine.  It  was  not  the  oil  of  the  palestra.  Æschines 
reproached  him  for  not  having  cared  for  the  well-being 

*  Valerius  Maximus,  viii,  7;  Demosthenes,  bom  in  384  or  385, 
died  in  322. 

f  Tusculanae  Disputationes ,  iv,  19:  “Qui  dolere  se  aiebat  si  quando 
opificum  anlelucana  victus  esset  industrial’ 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  MAN. 


85 


of  his  body  in  the  gymnasia.  Neither  had  the  chase 
any  charms  for  him.  He  disdained  the  amusements 
enjoyed  by  companions  of  his  age.  Athenian  orators 
more  than  once  drew  unfavorable  inferences  from  the 
indifference  of  their  adversaries  for  the  accustomed 
amusements  of  the  Greeks.  To  pass  the  time  pleas¬ 
antly  chatting  before  the  bankers’  counters,  in  the  per¬ 
fumer’s  shoj},  or  in  the' barber’s  shop,  was  one  of  their 
favorite  pleasures.  Aristogiton  did  not  engage  in  these 
pastimes.  He  lived  a  stranger  to  the  pleasures  of  so¬ 
ciety.  His  accuser  did  not  forget  to  charge  him  of  this 
crime.  Demosthenes  likewise  sought  isolation  for  him¬ 
self.  To  what  end  ?  To  accustom  himself  to  the  chi¬ 
canery  and  to  the  artifices  of  a  rhetorician  greedy  of 
the  goods  of  another.  Thus  speaks  the  accuser  of 
Ctesiplion.  Plutarch  gives  curious,  if  not  authentic,  de¬ 
tails  of  the  studious  practices  of  the  stubborn  wrestler. 
His  lialf-shaven  head,  his  cave,  his  great  mirror  before 
which  he  was  wont  to  declaim,  his  sword  suspended 
over  his  shoulder  to  check  its  disagreeable  shrugs,  the 
pebbles  in  his  mouth,  and,  finally,  the  different  painful 
or  whimsical  exercises  to  correct  the  imperfections  of 
his  voice,  are  at  least  proofs  of  the  impression  left 
upon  the  ancients  by  a  will  power  which  has  become 
traditional. 

Plutarch  means  that  the  youths  should  go  to  the 
gymnasium  and  to  the  chase,  exercises  more  ennobling 
than  fishing.*  The  latter  has,  however,  one  advan¬ 
tage:  it  does  not  cause  fatigue,  which  is,  according  to 
Plato,  the  enemy  of  knowledge.  Of  these  Demosthe- 

*  On  the  Education  of  Children.  Cf.  Animals  of  Land  and  Sea. 
Apollo  and  Diana  received  their  surnames  from  destroying  wolves 
and  conquering  stags.  No  god  was  ever  named  from  exterminating 
congres  and  surmullets. 


86 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


nes  enjoyed  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.  He  cared 
not  to  run  in  the  forests  like  Hippolyte,  and  he  devoted 
his  leisure  hours  to  pleasures  which  the  chaste  friend 
of  Diana  would  have  despised.  Before  his  severity  in 
prosecuting  his  guardians  had  given  him  the  surname 
of  Argas  (a  kind  of  serpent)  his  youth  had  received, 
not  from  his  nurse,  but  from  fame,  according  to  Æsclii- 
nes,  the  name  of  Batcilus*  The  customs  of  his  manly 
age  were  not  without  reproach.  Demosthenes’  differ¬ 
ent  speeches  cut  the  characters  of  the  gilded  youth  of 
Athens  to  the  quick.  Perhaps  the  accuser  of  Conon 
and  Heæra  has  exaggerated  these  traits  a  little. 

The  eulogies  conferred  upon  the  family  life  of  the 
Athenians  by  Aristogiton’s  adversary  cannot  be  sus¬ 
pected  of  exaggeration. 

“  Naturally  kind  and  indulgent  toward  one  another,  you 
conduct  yourselves  in  this  city  as  do  families  in  their  homes. 
One  house  contains  a  father,  his  sons,  who  have  grown  to 
manhood,  and  perhaps  their  children.  In  these  three  genera¬ 
tions  there  are  necessarily  numerous  and  essential  differences 
of  taste:  the  young  neither  speak  nor  act  like  the  old.  And 
yet,  if  the  young  people  are  observed,  they  desire  in  what¬ 
ever  they  do  to  escape  notice,  or  at  least  they  clearly  show 

their  intention  to  conceal  themselves.  If  the  31d  men,  on 

✓  ' 

their  part,  notice  that  the  young  are  given  too  much  to  ex¬ 
penditure,  to  wine,  and  to  the  pleasures  of  their  age,  they  see 
it  without  the  appearance  of  seeing  it.  Thus  each  follows 
his  own  tastes,  and  all  goes  well.”! 


*  Demosthenes’  busts  have  the  lower  lip  raised  against  the  gum,  a 
customary  habit  with  stammerers.  For  a  long  time  he  was  unable 
to  pronounce  the  letter  R.  His  nurse  might  have  designated  by  this 
nick-name  an  effeminate  stammering  like  that  of  the  Incoyables. 
Battos  (whence  j3drr aÀoç),  king  of  Cyrcne,  was  famous  for  his 
stammering.  Æschines  naturally  adopted  an  interpretation  less  in¬ 
nocent. 

f  This  is  an  exaggeration  of  the  Athenian  quality  praised  by  Thu- 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  MAN. 


87 


Timarchus  is  an  incorrigible  debauchee.  How  can 
it  be  helped?  Leave  him  to  his  evil  propensities,  with 
this  simple  restriction:  “With  respect  to  those  who 
give  chase  to  the  young, —  a  prey  always  easy  to  cap¬ 
ture, —  compel  them  to  turn  themselves  toward  foreign¬ 
ers  and  alien  settlers.  They  will  thus  be  able  to  sat¬ 
isfy  their  passion  without  injuring  you.”*  Timarchus 
would  be  a  very  bad  citizen  if  he  did  not  profit  by  so  con¬ 
ciliating  a  concession.  Æschines  endeavors  to  associ¬ 
ate  the  names  of  Demosthenes  and  Timarchus.  We 
know  what  to  think  of  these  calumnies,  but  of  calumny 
something  always  remains.  “If  these  fine  garments, 
these  soft  underclothes  in  which  you  are  dressed  when 
you  write  orations  against  your  friends,  and  which 
cause  them  to  pass  into  the  hands  of  the  judges,  were 
taken  away  from  you,  no  one  would  know,  I  believe, 
unless  informed,  whether  these  garments  belonged  to  a 
man  or  to  a  woman.  Demosthenes,  like  Hyperides 
and  others,  had  easy  manners,  and  participated  in 
recreations  before  which  the  old  men  of  Athens  closed 
their  eyes.  However,  he  excepted  wine  from  these 
pleasures.  Did  he  abstain  from  it  out  of  taste  or  cal¬ 
culation,  and  ought  this  proscription  of  wine  to  be  added 
to  the  voluntary  ordeals  which  his  desire  to  attain 
eloquence  imposed  on  him?  Unlike  Horace,  water 
was  perhaps  his  Hippocrene.  Cleon:  “Do  you  wish 
that  I  should  tell  you  what  has  happened  to  you  ? 
You  have,  like  so  many  others,  gained  a  small  case 
against  a  foreigner.  Did  you  mutter  it  sufficiently  all 
night,  declaim  it  in  the  streets,  recite  it  to  every 
comer  ?  Did  you  drink  enough  of  water  to  inspire 

cydides  (ii,  37):  a  fine  condition  of  social  relations  and  indulgence  of 
good  taste  among  a  people  who  know  how  to  live. 

*  Against  Timarchus ,  §  195.  f  Against  Timarchus ,  §  285. 


88 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


you?”  The  Butcher:  44  And  wliat  do  you  drink  then 
in  order  to  be  capable  of  astounding  the  stupefied  city 
with  your  clamors  ?  ”*  Cleon  follows  Philocrates’  re¬ 
gime.  64  He  waters  a  fresh  fish  with  a  large  jar  of  pure 
wine.”  Demosthenes’  method  is  different.  He  needs 
more  to  calm  than  to  animate  himself.  Eratosthenes 
speaks  of  his  bacchic  (-apdftax/ov')  frenzy;  Demetrius 
the  Phalerean,  of  his  44  enthusiasm  ”  at  the  bar.  What 
would  all  this  have  been  if  he  had  loved  his  wine  ? 
Pythagoras  proscribed  the  bean  as  contrary  to  the 
serenity  of  philosophic  meditation.  Our  orator  like¬ 
wise  distrusts  the  exciting  liquor  of  Bacchus,  and  his 
good  intention  is  turned  against  him.  Water  drinkers 
are  abominable.  Demosthenes  often  heard  this  epithet 
applied  in  connection  with  that  of  morose  and  coarse. 
Solon,  even  in  his  old  age,  enjoyed  the  sweet  gifts  of 
the  gods.  Demosthenes  seemed  never  to  unbend  his 
stern  and  imposing  brow.  A  similar  contrast  marked 
his  whole  life.  His  career  gave  proof  that  he  pos¬ 
sessed  a  sensibility  accessible  to  human  weakness,  and 
an  austere  firmness  in  mastering  himself  as  soon  as  a 
higher  interest  of  his  own  choice  imposed  upon  him  its 
duty. 

This  man,  unsparing  of  himself,  was  always  so  to¬ 
ward  the  enemies  of  his  country.  The  bitter  humor 
aroused  by  his  political  foes  was  not  at  all  surprising 
in  a  citizen  moved  by  the  dangers  of  Athens,  and  by 
the  animosities  of  the  unequal  contest  which  he  sus¬ 
tained  for  her.  The  sad  thoughts  of  his  mind  dark¬ 
ened  the  traits  of  his  character.  This  orator,  with 
careworn  visage  and  evil  predictions,  will  be  treated 
with  curses  after  Chæronea.  Before  the  disaster  Æs- 
cliines  was  contented  to  abuse  his  morose  character 

*  Aristophanes,  Knights. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  MAN. 


89 


and  his  gross  manners.  Wliat  differences  between 
these  two  counsellors  of  the  people!  The  one  sport¬ 
ive,  amiable,  has  the  smiles  and  indulgence  of  Phi- 
linte.  He  has  had  the  good  taste  never  to  trouble  any 
accountable  person;  he  never  banishes  any  person  into 
exile.  He  is  easy,  accommodating;  he  views  things 
on  the  agreeable  side,  and  adapts  himself  to  the  times. 
He  loves  Athens,  the  liberty  of  Athens,  as  Pliilinte 
loves  truth  and  virtue;  a  little  less  than  his  comforts, 
and  on  condition  that  it  will  cost  him  nothing.  De¬ 
mosthenes  is  not,  like  him,  a  gallant  man.  He  injures 
the  Macedonians  in  order  to  convince  them  that  he  is 
their  enemy;  he  insults  Philip  at  the  risk  of  implicat¬ 
ing  the  city;  he  is  brutal,  ill-advised;  he  does  not  know 
how  to  live.  He  has  no  heart;  it  is  scarcely  seven 
days  since  his  daughter,  who  first  gave  him  the  sweet 
name  of  father,  expired.  Demosthenes,  crowned  with 
flowers,  dressed  in  a  white  robe,  celebrates  Philip’s 
death  in  a  public  sacrifice  !  He  violates  the  most  sa¬ 
cred  laws  of  nature  and  religion.  He  dares  to  say  in 
public  that  he  believes  himself  bound  more  by  the 
duties  of  patriotism  than  by  the  rights  of  hospitality. 
He  causes  to  be  put  to  torture  an  Oritian  who  was  sus¬ 
pected  of  high  treason,  and  whom  he  had  formerly 
welcomed  under  his  roof.  He  accuses  his  colleagues 
in  the  embassy  of  prevarication,  even  after  having  par¬ 
ticipated  with  them  in  the  repast  of  the  Prytaneum. 
A  blind  enemy  of  Alexander,  he  persuades,  even  while 
in  exile,  the  Athenians  to  revolt.  Ills  obstinate  resist¬ 
ance  is  like  that  of  a  madman.  *  *  *  These  traits  de¬ 
picted  by  Æscliines  were  intended  to  dishonor  Demos¬ 
thenes,  but  in  fact  they  honor  him. 

Æscliines  further  calumniates  him  when  he  insinu¬ 
ates  that  he  was  sold  to  the  enemies  of  the  republic. 

4* 


90 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


In  Demosthenes  the  citizen  was  irreproachable,  if  the 
man  was  not.  Like  Mirabeau,  Demosthenes  loved 
money,  and  for  the  same  reasons.  Plutarch  reproaches 
him  for  having  increased  his  wealth  on  board  of  mer¬ 
chantmen,  which  was  then  considered  the  greatest 
usury.*  On  this  point  modern  men  are  justly  less 
rigorous  than  the  ancients  were.  Money  is  a  com¬ 
modity  as  well  as  anything  else.  Commerce  with 
money  is  therefore  legitimate  on  land  and  sea.  Plu¬ 
tarch  accuses  Demosthenes  of  another  charge,  equally 
trivial.  The  Athenian  orator  was  never  intrusted  with 
an  important  commission  or  command  like  Cicero. 
Does  the  biographer  wish  us  to  understand  that  per¬ 
haps  he  would  have  enriched  himself  like  Yerres’  ac¬ 
cuser,  or  that  at  the  head  of  an  army  he  would  not 
have  been  more  scrupulous  or  sparing  of  others1  prop¬ 
erty  than  Diopithes  or  Timotheus?f  These  insinua¬ 
tions  should  be  withdrawn:  opportunities  are  rarely 
wanting  to  him  who  would  offend.  Æschines  and 
Philip’s  well-paid  friends  have  clearly  proven  it.  De¬ 
mosthenes  was  fond  of  luxury  and  its  accompanying 
pleasures;  no  one  lias  ever  convicted  him  of  having 
betrayed  his  duties  as  a  citizen  in  order  to  gratify  his 
inclinations.^:  The  stenographer’s  eloquence  sufficed 
to  delight  him.  Often  has  he  himself  in  his  speeches 
stigmatized,  in  the  name  of  his  litigant,  the  greedy 
venality  of  those  who  deal  in  orations.  Æschines  has 
a  right  to  censure  him  for  deserving  that  his  own  in¬ 
vectives  against  covetous  orators  should  be  applied  to 
himself;  but  is  this  gain,  whatever  may  be  thought  of 

*  Comparison  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero ,  chap.  3. 

f  Oration  on  the  Chersoncsus,  and  Against  Timotlieus ,  passim. 

X  Æscliines  insists  upon  the  Eubœan  affairs,  but  without  proving 
anything. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  MAN. 


91 


it,  comparable  to  that  of  Philocrates  ?  The  author  of 
The  Lives  of  Illustrious  Men  expressed  regret,  and 
all  share  it,  that  Demosthenes  was  not  sufficiently  dar¬ 
ing  in  war,  nor  u  sufficiently  guarded  and  fortified 
against  presents.”  These  two  qualities  would  cer¬ 
tainly  have  crowned  his  glory;  but  what  his  defects 
have  left  to  him  is  still  grand;  and  as  Plutarch  has 
said  of  him,  if  Demosthenes  in  some  respects  did  not 
escape  the  common  vices  of  Athens,  he  was  the  most 
honorable  orator  of  his  time  with  the  exception  of 
Phocion.  It  was  no  small  merit  during  the  Macedo¬ 
nian  period  to  be,  we  will  not  say  perfect,  but  even 
moderately  virtuous,  —  the  only  assumption  Demosthe¬ 
nes  ever  entertained.* 

Eloquence  was  the  great  power  at  Athens,  but  too 
often  gold  actuated  it.  Without  mentioning  the  cor¬ 
ruption  of  magistrates  and  judges  (thus  Chares  through 
his  immense  wealth  escaped  death  which  his  colleague 
Lysicles  had  already  suffered),  the  orators  of  Athens 
sold  their  eloquence  and  their  silence  in  turn.  Those 
whose  heads  Alexander  demanded  owed  their  safety 
to  five  talents  which  Demades  accepted  for  shielding 
them,  by  a  skillful  expedient,  from  the  vengeance  of 
his  friend,  the  Macedonian  prince.  In  the  case  of 
Harpalus,f  this  same  Demades  laughed  at  the  money- 
cold  ascribed  to  Demosthenes.  It  is  well  known  how 
Philip  paid  his  partisans  for  speaking  or  remaining 
silent.  lie  became  so  accustomed  to  success  over  these 
venal  souls  that  he  was  filled  with  hatred  toward  the 
upright  counsellors  of  Athens.  “I  would  blush  to 

*  /xérpiov  TzoXirrj v.  (Pro  Corona.) 

f  Harpalus  fled  from  Asia  to  Athens  (327)  in  the  hope  of  escaping 
Alexander’s  wrath  and  enjoying  the  fruits  of  his  extortions  in  peace. 
He  succeeded  in  bribing  several  orators,  but  not  the  city’s  protection, 
and  had  to  flee  to  Crete. 


92 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


purchase  the  friendship  of  such  men.”  We  have  little 
faith  in  a  scruple  of  delicacy  on  the  part  of  Philip. 
If  he  did  not  seduce  Demosthenes  it  was  not  because 
of  his  disdain,  but  because  he  was  unable.  To  bribe 
Demosthenes  was  to  terminate  the  war  at  once;  but 
if' the  zealous  patriot  accepted  gold  from  the  Medes  to 
procure  arms  against  the  Macedonians,  as  the  Euro¬ 
pean  powers  unscrupulously  received  gold  from  Eng¬ 
land  with  which  to  defeat  Hapoleon,  never  did  he 
stain  his  hands  with  presents  from  his  enemies.  In 
an  oration  *  in  which  he  succeeded,  by  force  of  reason 
and  elevated  sentiments,  in  calming  the  Athenians  wdio 
were  enraged  against  him,  in  the  midst  of  the  double 
scourge  of  the  plague  and  of  the  war,  Pericles  recalls 
his  principal  claims  to  their  confidence,  and  especially 
his  integrity, —  superior  to  riches, —  a  rare  quality,  which 
the  historian  insists  is  one  of  the  causes  of  his  long 
power  over  the  Athenians.  “Pericles,  as  eminent  by 
his  intelligence  as  by  the  respect  shown  him,  mani¬ 
festly  invincible  to  the  seduction  of  presents,  governed 
the  multitude.  He  did  not  allow  himself  to  be  led  by 
it,  but  he  led  and  guided  it.”  Demosthenes’  political 
integrity  was  in  like  manner  one  of  the  secrets  of  his 
strength  against  Philip  and  his  influence  over  Athens. 

“  If  on  all  these  occasions  it  is  evident  that  I  have  foreseen 
the  future  more  clearly  than  others,  I  do  not  assume  vanity, 
nor  do  I  flatter  myself  with  the  belief  that  I  am  possessed 
of  a  remarkable  sagacity.  To  two  causes,  Athenians,  I  will 
attribute  all  the  honor  of  my  intelligence  and  presentiments: 
the  first  is  fortune;  *  *  *  the  second  the  disinterestedness 
with  which. I  judge  and  reason  on  all  things.  No;  no  man 
can  show  a  single  present  attached  to  my  actions,  to  my 
words  and  speeches  in  the  administration  of  duty.”  f 

*  Thucydides,  ii,  G0-G5.  f  Oration  on  the  Peace,  §  11. 


DEMOSTHENES  —  THE  MAN. 


93 


Money  is  the  offensive  arm  of  the  ambitious.  All 
usurpers  establish  their  power  on  corruption.  While 
Philip  was  buying  Greece  rather  than  conquering  her, 
our  orator’s  integrity  remained  impenetrable  to  seduc¬ 
tion.  By  that  means  he  again  acquired  the  right  of 
comparing  himself  to  Pericles  and  claiming  honor  like 
him. 

“  If  it  is  asked  by  what  means  Philip  succeeded  in  all  his 
enterprises,  everybody  will  answer,  By  his  army,  by  his 
presents,  by  the  corruption  of  those  who  were  at  the  head 
of  affairs.  *  *  *  In  refusing  his  gold,  I  have  conquered 
Philip;  for  if  the  purchaser  triumphs  over  the  traitor  who 
sells  himself,  that  man  who  remains  incorruptible  has  tri¬ 
umphed  over  the  seducer.  Athens,  therefore,  has  been  un¬ 
conquered  on  the  part  of  Demosthenes. * 

Demosthenes  several  times  made  allusion  to  the  re¬ 
proach  of  timidity  which  was  imputed  to  him.  “He 
is  weak  and  without  courage.  Pie  counsels  war  and 
dares  not  propose  it  by  decree  !  ”  In  fact,  he  objects 
to  it  in  the  fourth  Philippic  (341),  and  explains  his 
objection  by  motives  of  prudence.  The  fierce  reply  of 
Ilegesippus  on  this  occasion  is  well  known:  u  But  it  is 
war  that  you  propose  !  Yes,  war,  and  with  it  mourn¬ 
ings,  public  burials,  funeral  eulogies, —  everything  that 
ought  to  make  us  free  and  save  our  necks  from  the 
Macedonian  yoke.”  Demosthenes  does  not  view  it 
in  this  light.  He  does  not  conceal  his  apprehension 
of  being  treated,  in  case  of  failure,  as  traitors  more 
justly  would  be  dealt  with.  During  the  previous  year 
(342f  he  extricated  his  cause  from  that  of  Æschines, 
a  prevaricating  deputy,  and  disavowed  the  criminal 
manoeuvres,  in  the  expiation  of  which  he  feared  that 
he  would  see,  in  days  of  anger,  his  innocence  entan- 


*  Pro  Corona ,  §  247. 


94 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


glecl.  In  the  third  Philippic  he  calls  to  mind  Eu- 
phræus,  the  Oritian:  “Rather  die  a  thousand  times 
than  complain  like  a  coward  to  Philip  and  deliver  up 
any  of  your  faithful  orators.”  Demosthenes  did  not 
flatter  himself  in  saying  that  he  foresaw  the  future. 
AEschines  was  to  accuse  him  of  ruining  Greece,  and 
Alexander  was  to  demand  his  head.  From  352,  in 
the  first  Philippic,  he  declares  himself  resigned  to  suffer 
everything  if  success  deceives  his  expectation,  and  at 
the  same  time  he  would  wish  to  be  assured,  he  said, 
that  it  would  be  as  advantageous  to  himself  to  give 
good  counsels  as  to  the  Athenians  to  receive  them. 
Notwithstanding  his  uncertainty  he  gives  his  coun¬ 
sels,  for  he  knows  them  to  be  useful.  “Audacity 
is  often  the  child  of  ignorance,  and  hesitation  that 
of  deliberate  consideration.  The  truly  great  mind  is 
that  which  clearly  perceives  wherein  is  pleasure  and 
pain,  and  which,  in  the  meantime,  never  turns  away 
from  dangers.”  *  Demosthenes  saw  the  danger.  With¬ 
out  fear  or  boasting  he  felt  it  approaching  and  boldly 
faced  it.  In  these  conditions  the  cautious  prudence 
of  certain  apparent  timidities  exalts,  if  it  can  be  said, 
the  courage  of  principles  and  general  conduct. 

According  to  Æscliines,  Demosthenes  was  wanting  in 
assurance  before  the  multitudes  ( 'detXùv  -pôç  zobç  o/Xou^. 

“As  regards  bis  courage  I  have  only  a  word  to  say:  If  he 
did  not  acknowledge  his  cowardice  and  you  were  not  con- 
-  vineed  of  it  as  he  is,  I  would  stop  for  a  moment  to  prove  it 
to  you.  But  since  he  himself  recognized  it  in  our  assemblies, 
and  since  you  do  not  in  the  least  doubt  it,  it  only  remains 
for  me  to  remind  you  of  the  laws  directed  against  cowards.”  f 

Thus  an  enemy  could  describe  him.  Some  lines  of 
*  Thucydides,  ii,  40.  f  Against  Ctesiphon ,  §  175. 


DEMOSTHENES 


TIIE  MAN. 


95 


the  oration  In  Midiam  imply  a  discreet  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  the  facility  with  which  he  faltered. 

Midias  endeavored  to  obtain  from  him  a  nonsuit  at 
the  cost  of  gold.  At  the  sight  of  the  banker  Blepæus 
approaching  Demosthenes,  the  fear  of  seeing  him  ac¬ 
cept  a  settlement  provoked  the  people  to  such  clamors 
that  the  terrified  orator  left  his  mantle  and  hastened 
his  flight,  “almost  naked,  in  his  shirt,”  before  the  pur¬ 
suing  financier.  To  fly  before  gold  and  shouts  is  in¬ 
deed  characteristic  of  a  man  very  easily  influenced. 
Demosthenes  was  impressible  to  an  extraordinary  de¬ 
gree.  He  did  not  always  possess  that  firmness  which 
permits  one,  without  stumbling,  to  look  in  the  face 
the  situations  in  which  coolness  is  necessary  to  escape 
from  all  danger.  Demosthenes  had  a  nervous  and 
sensitive  nature.  Æs  chin  es  compares  him  to  a  woman 
on  account  of  the  vivacity  of  his  sentiments,  and  re¬ 
proaches  him  for  weeping  more  easily  than  others 
laugh.  He  was,  as  often  happens,  very  firm,  very 
decided,  in  his  ideas,  but  timid  in  his  actions.  A  little 
was  sufficient  to  throw  him  off  his  balance.  The  nil  ad- 
mirari ,  which  constitutes  the  virtue  and  happiness  of 
Horace’s  sage,  was  not  his  lot.  He  was  a  man  aston¬ 
ished  at  the  most  trilling  things.  How  much  he  suf¬ 
fered  from  this  weakness  !  Sent  on  an  embassy  to 
Alexander,  then  encamped  under  the  walls  of  Thebes, 
he  was  seized  with  fear  and  returned  with  the  precip¬ 
itation  of  a  “fugitive.”  Appalled  at  the  march  of 
Alexander  on  Thebes  after  its  revolt,  the  Athenians 
instructed  deputies  to  announce  to  Philip’s  son  that 
they  recognized  his  hegemony  and  that  they  decreed 
him  divine  honors.  The  author  of  the  Philippics  had 
not  the  courage  to  cross  the  Cithæron  and  to  place  at 
the  feet  of  the  prince  whom  he  had  mocked  the  proof 


96 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


of  his  country’s  and  liis  own  humiliation.  Dare  we 
blame  him  for  it  ?  If  the  sentiment  which  inspired 
Demosthenes’  retreat  was  such  as  we  believe  it  was, 
Æscliines’  raillery  is  rather  a  praise  than  a  reproach 
to  him.  But  why  so  freely  accept  a  mission  if  his 
courage  to  accomplish  the  task  was  not  assured  ?  De¬ 
mosthenes  feared,  perhaps,  that  he  would  falter  before 
the  young  conqueror,  as  he  had  done  before  Philip. 
In  the  presence  of  the  Macedonian’s  court,  and  with¬ 
out  the  excuse  of  the  military  apparel  which  was  des¬ 
tined  one  day  to  paralyze  the  flowing  eloquence  of  the 
defender  of  Milo,  the  deputy  from  Athens  lost  his 
memory  and  stammered,  a  disgrace  obvious  to  an 
orator  who  was  Æscliines’  colleague.  That  nature 
which  Demosthenes  subdued  at  the  tribune  of  the 
Pnyx  was  predominant  at  Pella.  Others  before  him 
and  less  timid  than  he  had  experienced  similar  failures. 
Alcibiades  was  wanting  in  self-confidence  at  the  tribune, 
and  often  broke  down.  One  day,  while  haranguing 
the  people,  he  let  a  quail  escape.  The  Athenians  ran 
after  it,  caught  it,  and  returned  it  to  him.  Did  Alcibi¬ 
ades,  wdio  was  fond  of  diversions,  premeditate  this  very 
thing  in  order  to  conceal  the  treachery  of  his  memory 
and  to  give  himself  time  to  think  ?  An  idol  of  the 
Athenians,  he  well  knew  that  he  was  not  speaking^ 
before  hostile  hearers.  Demosthenes,. in  the  presence 
of  Philip,  lost  his  self-possession  as  if  he  were  before 
an  enemy. 

liis  timidity  was  too  manifest  to  think  of  concealing 
it;  he  could  only  essay  to  apologize  for  it. 

“  Hardy,  shameless,  impudent,  I  am  not,  and  do  not  desire 
to  become  so.  Nevertheless,  I  esteem  myself  much  more 
courageous  than  these  intrepid  statesmen  without  shame.  To 
judge,  to  confiscate,  to  distribute  the  property  of  others,  to 


DEMOSTHENES - TIIE  MAN. 


97 


accuse,  without  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  country,  does 
not  demand  any  courage.  When  one  has  for  a  pledge  of 
his  own  safety  the  faculty  of  speaking  and  of  governing  to 
please  you,  boldness  is  without  danger.  But,  for  your  good, 
to  resist  your  wishes,  to  give  you  advice  not  agreeable,  but 
always  the  most  useful  to  you,  to  follow  a  policy  in  which 
fortune  rules  more  often  than  sound  calculation,  and  never¬ 
theless  to  declare  myself  responsible  both  for  fortune  and 
calculation, —  this,  I  say,  proves  a  man  of  courage.”* 

Æschines  taunts  him  for  his  cowardice.  And  didst 
thou  not,  replies  Demosthenes,  during  the  prosperous 
days  of  our  country  “live  the  life  of  a  hare?  Fear¬ 
ful,  trembling,  thou  hast  constantly  expected  to  be 
struck  and  chastised  for  the  crimes  with  which  thy 
conscience  has  reproached  thee.  At  the  hour  of  our 
misfortunes  thy  assurance  has  struck  every  eye.”f 
Demosthenes’  timorous  humor  discloses  the  charac¬ 
ter  of  the  citizen,  resolved  to  brave  the  dangers  con¬ 
nected  with  the  political  role  which  honor  had  com¬ 
manded  him  to  choose.  Was  that  orator  cowardly 
who,  assailed  by  sarcasms,  by  cries,  by  menaces,  and 
at  the  risk  of  being  “torn  into  pieces,”  repulsed  with 
his  inflexible  views  and  patriotic  zeal  the  assaults  of 
beasts  ( Oypia )  which  had  been  let  loose  on  him  ?  Some¬ 
times  he  seemed  to  hesitate  to  commit  himself.  What 
is  the  use  of  incurring  enmities  which  do  not  profit  the 
commonwealth  ?  But  when  solemn  circumstances  de¬ 
manded  it,  as  on  the  day  after  Elatea,  and  on  the  eve 
of  the  Theban  alliance,  far  from  sparing  himself,  he 
devoted  himself  entirely  to  the  common  interest.  Civil 
courage  is  valuable  at  a  time  when  the  country  is  in 
danger  and  summons  us,  and  when  the  sentiment  of 
duty  binds  a  citizen  to  bear  alone,  or  more  than  all 

*  Oration  on  the  Chersonesus ,  §  68.  f  Pro  Corona ,  §  263. 


98 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


others,  the  hazards  and  responsibilities  of  the  future. 
Cicero,  consoled  by  Cato,  displayed  this  courage  against 
Catiline;  Demosthenes  displayed  it  against  Philip  with 
no  other  ally  or  inspirer  than  the  genius  of  the  Athens 
of  the  past.  The  comic  poet  Timocles  pictures  De¬ 
mosthenes  as  a  warrior  in  battle  array,  a  u  Briareus, 
an  eater  of  lances  and  catapults.”*  The  irony  is  keen 
when  we  consider  that  this  warrior  had  fled  at  Chæ- 
ronea.  Here  it  would  be  pleasing  to  use  the  eraser  and 
draw  the  curtain.  Nevertheless,  if  Bourdaloue  marked 
the  six  circumstances  in  extenuation  of  u  the  eclipse” 
of  Louis  of  Bourbon  at  the  head  of  the  Spanish  army, 
it  is  equitable,  not  to  palliate  Demosthenes’  fault,  but 
to  show  why  his  compatriots  pardoned  him.  On  this 
point  Æschines,  a  brave  soldier,  had  fine  play  against 
the  warlike  orator  who  deserted  his  post.  The  law  of 
Solon  condemns  to  civil  degradation  the  coward  who 
throws  away  his  buckler;  and  he,  —  he  claims  a  crown! 
In  vain  Demosthenes,  in  order  to  escape  his  adver¬ 
sary’s  blows,  intrenches  himself  behind  his  oratorical 
ability:  at  the  tribune,  in  the  embassies,  in  the  public 
councils,  I  have  served  the  state  better  than  any  other 
man.  The  minister  of  Athens  has  always  done  his 
duty;  let  the  statesman  acquit  the  soldier.  This  apol¬ 
ogy  is  more  adroit  than  solid,  and  his  answer  to  Æs¬ 
chines’  sarcasm  in  this  proverbial  verse,  which  Aulus 
Gellius  puts  in  his  mouth,  is  truly  characteristic, — 

“  He  who  fights  and  runs  away, 

Will  live  to  fight  another  day,”  — 

a  verse  which  the  poet  Horace,  without  doubt,  agreed 
to  on  his  return  from  Philippi.  “  Yes,  my  friends,  I 
fled,  but  with  you.”  Thus  Xenocrates,  not  merely  a 


*  Fragments  of  Comic  Poets. 


DEMOSTHENES - TIIE  MAN. 


99 


soldier  but  a  general,  without  further  troubling  him¬ 
self,  replied  to  his  companions  in  the  rout.  In  like 
manner  Demosthenes  followed  the  general  rout;  he 
fled  from  the  battle-field,  but  in  fact  he  returned  to 
his  duty.  While  he  was  stealing  away  conquered  from 
the  arrows  of  the  Macedonians,  what  was  Æscliines 
doing?  Æscliines  has  neglected  to  tell  us.  Was  he 
behind  Philip’s  army,  awaiting  the  issue  of  the  combat, 
hoping,  perhaps,  for  the  defeat  which  must  necessarily 
strengthen  his  party  ?  He  himself  took  care  to  give 
us  in  detail  an  account  of  his  services  in  the  campaigns 
previous  to  the  year  350.  Nowhere  has  the  glorious 
soldier  of  Thamines,  crowned  for  his  bravery  against 
the  Eubœans,*  made  allusion  to  his  participation  in 
the  battle  of  Chæronea.  It  would  have  been  very 
difficult  to  repulse  with  his  arms  an  enemy  whose 
complaisant  policy  had  prepared  the  road.  Demos¬ 
thenes  is  worthy  of  blame,  but  we  are  not  whiling 
that  Æscliines  should  address  him  on  this  subject. 
Æscliines  did  nothing  to  avert  the  disaster,  nothing  to 
repair  it.  Even  after  Chæronea,  Demosthenes  was  a 
better  and  more  useful  citizen  than  Æscliines.  De¬ 
mosthenes’  safety  served  Athens  better  than  if  he  had 
suffered  a  courageous  death.  It  was  he,  with  Ilyper- 
ides,  who  organized  the  resistance  and  forced  Philip, 
by  the  city’s  resolute  attitude,  to  treat  her  with  care 
and  respect.  Viewing  things  in  a  certain  light,  all  the 
works  of  genius  combined  are  not  worth  one  good 
action.  And  yet,  if  one  of  these  works  is  fitted  to 
inspire  us  with  virtuous  acts,  can  we  not  show  some 
indulgence  to  the  weakness  which  made  it  possible  ? 
The  author  of  the  Oration  on  the  Crown  did  not  fight 
like  a  hero,  but  that  oration  inspires  heroism.  It 


*  Æscliines,  Embassy ,  §  1G7. 


100 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


would  have  been  a  great  loss  to  Athens  if  the  trial  on 
the  crown  had  not  occurred.  For  if  she  saved  the 
honor  of  the  Hellenes  by  fighting  at  Chæronea,  she 
consecrated  her  own  by  justifying  Ctesiphon’s  decree. 
There  are  fortunate  mistakes  against  which  posterity 
has  not  always  the  courage  to  protest.  Let  us  pardon 
this  confession.  We  are  very  well  satisfied  that  Demos¬ 
thenes  ill  sustained  his  maxims  of  war  to  the  knife  on 
the  field  of  battle.  His  death  would  have  confirmed  liis 
orations,  but  how  dearly  would  this  confirmation  have 
been  bought  !  The  Athenians  themselves,  if  consulted, 
would  not  have  wished  it  at  that  price;  they  owed 
gratitude  to  the  counsellor  of  the  city  for  the  generous 
words  which  had  awakened  their  zeal.  Like  the  The¬ 
bans,  they  were  touched  with  this  magnanimous  trait. 
u  Thebans,  you  refuse  to  give  us  your  alliance;  very 
well,  we  will  fight  alone.  Only  permit  us  to  pass  over 
your  land  to  go  to  Philip!  How  many  times  did 
they  applaud  his  manly  counsels  without  having  the 
fortitude  to  follow  them?  Demosthenes,  in  his  turn, 
forgot  what  he  had  said  concerning  the  duty  of  dying 
for  his  country,  and  his  fellow  citizens  had  the  gener¬ 
osity  not  to  remember  it.  The  orator  of  the  Philip¬ 
pics  conceived  courage  without  realizing  it.  Lie  mag¬ 
nificently  traced  the  idea  of  it,  as  J.  J.  Rousseau 
adored  virtue,  with  a  Platonic  passion.  Human  weak- 

*  Æscliines  {Against  Ctesiphon )  lias  the  unskillfulness  to  find  fault 
with  this  eloquence,  worthy  of  the  sublime  apostrophe  of  Ajax  to 
Jupiter: 

“  Oh,  King!  oh,  Father!  hear  my  humble  prayer: 

Dispel  this  cloud,  the  light  of  heaven  restore; 

Give  me  to  see,  and  Ajax  asks  no  more  !  - 
If  Greece  must  perish,  we  thy  will  obey, 

But  let  us  perish  in  the  light  of  day.”  (Iliad,  xvii,  G45  et  seq.) 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  MAN. 


101 


ness  will  always  justify  Montaigne’s  saying:  “¥e 
must  consider  the  sermon  and  preacher  separately.” 

Never  would  Demosthenes  have  made  a  public  con¬ 
fession  of  his  timidity  if  he  had  not  known  that  he 
could  do  it  with  impunity.  Athens  even  gave  him 
remarkable  proofs  of  pardon.  It  would  not  have  been 
surprising,  immediately  after  the  disaster,  if  the  people 
persecuted  him  with  their  resentments  as  the  author 
of  the  public  distress.  On  the  contrary,  the  whole 
city  turned  toward  him.  It  adopted  his  decrees,  it 
spurned  the  accusers  who  wished  to  profit  by  the  pub¬ 
lic  misfortunes  and  overwhelm  him, —  a  conduct  equally 
honorable  to  Athens  and  to  the  orator.  Very  soon 
the  city  confirmed  its  esteem  for  him  by  a  testimony 
still  more  striking.  Let  Demosthenes  himself  speak. 
To  quote  him  here  offers  him  an  opportune  chance  to 
avenge  himself: 

“  When  the  peopie  came  to  elect  a  person  to  make  the 
funeral  oration  over  the  slain  immediately  after  the  battle, 
they  would  not  elect  you,  although  you  were  proposed,  al¬ 
though  you  are  so  eminent  in  speaking;  they  would  not 
elect  Demades,  who  had  just  concluded  the  peace,  nor  Hege¬ 
mon,  no,  nor  any  other  of  your  faction.  They  elected  me. 
And  when  you  and  Pythocles  rose  up  (let  Heaven  bear  wit¬ 
ness  with  what  abandoned  impudence!),  when  jmu  charged 
me  with  the  same  crimes  as  now,  when  you  pursued  me  with 
the  same  virulence  and  scurrilitv;  all  this  served  but  to  con- 
firm  the  people  in  their  resolution  of  electing  me.  You  know 
too  well  the  reason  of  this  preference;  yet  hear  it  from  me. 
They  were  perfectly  convinced  both  of  that  faithful  zeal  and 
alacrity  with  which  I  had  conducted  their  affairs,  and  of  that 
iniquity  which  you  and  your  party  had  discovered,  by  pub¬ 
licly  avowing,  at  a  time  when  your  country  was  unfortunate, 
what  you  had  denied  with  solemn  oaths  while  her  interests 


102 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


flourished.  And  it  was  a  natural  conclusion  that  the  men 
whom  our  public  calamities  emboldened  to  disclose  their  senti¬ 
ments,  had  ever  been  our  enemies,  and  now  were  our  de¬ 
clared  enemies.  Besides,  they  rightly  judged  that  he  who 
was  to  speak  in  praise  of  the  deceased,  to  grace  their  noble 
actions,  could  not,  in  decency,  be  the  man  who  had  lived  and 
conversed  in  strict  connection  with  those  who  had  fought 
against  them;  that  they  who,  at  Macedon,  had  shared  in 
the  feast  and  joined  in  the  triumph  over  the  misfortunes 
of  Greece  with  those  by  whose  hands  the  slaughter  had  been 
committed,  should  not  receive  a  mark  of  honor  on  their  re¬ 
turn  to  Athens.  Nor  did  our  fellow  citizens  look  for  men 
who  could  act  the  part  of  mourners,  but  for  one  deeply  and 
sincerely  affected.  And  such  sincerity  they  found  in  them¬ 
selves  and  me;  not  the  least  degree  of  it  in  you.  I  was  then 
appointed^  you  and  your  associates  were  rejected.  Nor  was 
this  the  determination  of  the  people  only;  those  parents  also 
and  brethren  of  the  deceased  who  were  appointed  to  attend 
the  funeral  rites  expressed  the  same  sentiments.  For  as  they 
were  to  give  the  banquet,  which,  agreeably  to  ancient  usage, 
was  to  be  held  at  his  house  who  had  been  most  strictly  con¬ 
nected  with  the  deceased,  they  gave  it  at  my  house,  and  with 
reason,  for  in  point  of  kindred  each  had  his  connections 
with  some  among  the  slain  much  nearer  than  mine;  but  with 
the  whole  body  none  was  more  intimately  connected;  for  he 
who  was  most  concerned  in  their  safety  and  success  must 
surely  feel  the  deepest  sorrow  at  their  unhappy  and  unmerited 
misfortune.” 

Bdelycleon,  an  advocate  of  Labes,  excuses  a  thievish 
dog  in  these  terms:  He  is  a  poor  ignorant  brute. 
“Pardon  me,  he  cannot  play  on  the  lyre.”  The  re¬ 
mark  is  comic  and  profound.  Yice  has  often  other 
roots  than  ignorance,  but  it  is  also  often  born  of  ig¬ 
norance.  The  followers  of  Plato  only  erred  by  exag¬ 
geration  when  they  confounded  science  and  wisdom, 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  MAN. 


103 


in  other  respects  a  less  dangerous  prejudice  than  that 
of  the  Cartesians  attributing  errors  to  the  will.  Igno¬ 
rance  is  not  alone  the  origin  of  culpability.  One  is 
born  a  fool,  another  becomes  one;  the  latter  is  culpa¬ 
ble,  since  he  has  perverted  his  nature.  The  former  is 
innocent  because  lie  is  from  birth  what  lie  is.  The 
gods  made  him  so.  Antiquity  was  very  indulgent 
toward  moral  infirmities  attributable  to  nature.  Want 
of  courage  was  of  this  number,  and  this  consideration 
sometimes  tempered  the  severity  of  punishment.  Isoc¬ 
rates  never  dared  to  mount  the  rostrum,  and  he  spent 
ten  years  in  composing  one  oration.  He  was  evident¬ 
ly  interested  in  placing  eloquence  above  all  things. 
He  also  declared  that  it  gave  a  man  more  honor  than 
wealth,  courage. ,  and  the  other  gifts  of  fortune  and 
nature.  The  author  of  the  panegyric  on  Athens  has 
chiseled  out  gems.  He  is  a  goldsmith  who  pleads  for 
his  art.  He  may  be  right,  but  this  disdain  for  courage, 
a  pure  gift  of  nature,  is  remarkable,  for  it  implies  in¬ 
dulgence  to  him  who  does  not  possess  it.  This  dispo¬ 
sition  of  the  ancients  to  condemn  the  weaknesses  of 
nature  gave  to  Demosthenes  a  distinction  at  which  the 
moderns  are  at  first  astonished.  Midias,  said  he,  will 
become  humble  in  order  to  disarm  your  justice;  be 
so  much  the  more  inexorable  to  him. 

“For  if  incapable  of  curbing  his  pride, —  lie  had  been  so 
haughty  and  violent  all  his  life  by  the  power  of  nature  and 
fate, —  it  would  be  just  to  moderate  your  rigor;  but  if,  capa¬ 
ble  to  adapt  himself,  whenever  he  wishes,  to  moderation,  he 
has  adopted  a  contrary  plan  of  life,  it  is  very  evident  that 
after  having  deluded  you  to-day  he  will  become  to-morrow 
the  same  man  you  know  him  to  be.” 

This  is  saying:  u  Strike  Midias  without  pity,  he 
is  not  incorrigible”;  and  if  he  were  manifestly  in- 


104 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


corrigible,  would  it  be  necessary  to  save  him  from 
punishment?  Well  authenticated  incorrigibility  is  an 
argument  which,  among  modern  nations,  the  advo¬ 
cates  of  capital  punishment  endeavor  to  establish. 
On  the  contrary,  it  forced  the  ancients  in  certain 
cases  to  use  clemency.  “There  are  passions  which 
emanate  from  nature.  Thus  a  son,  appearing  before 
the  tribunal  for  having  struck  his  father,  defended 
himself  by  saying:  4  But  he  also  struck  his  father!’ 
and  he  was  acquitted;  for  it  appeared  to  the  judges 
that  it  was  a  natural  failing  which  was  in  the  blood, 

< puffr/.ij v  â/xapriav." 

“  Intemperance  seems  to  be  more  voluntary  than  coward¬ 
ice ;  it  also  makes  us  the  object  of  more  legitimate  re¬ 
proaches.  *  *  *  Cowardice  does  not  seem  to  be  voluntary  in 
all  cases,  when  they  are  examined  in  detail.  It  is  not  it¬ 
self  grievous,  but  the  circumstances  under  which  it  is  pro¬ 
duced  (the  fear  of  servitude  and  death)  cause  pain  which 
places  man  beyond  his  control;  it  compels  him  to  lay  down 
his  arms  or  to  commit  other  acts  as  unbecoming  ( àa^ijovsiv ). 
This  is  why  it  appears  to  be  real  violence,”* 

like  the  act  of  striking  his  parents  by  virtue  of  a  heredi¬ 
tary  disposition.  It  would  be  easy  for  us  to  multiply 
these  citations.  They  all  prove  that,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Stagirite,  man  is  not  responsible  for  the  physical 
emotions  that  actuate  him,  nor  for  acts  provoked  by 
those  emotions.  There  are  many  forces  which  habit¬ 
ually  triumph  over  human  nature,  and  consequently 
the  motives  or  intemperances  to  which  we  yield,  shrink 
from  the  judgment  of  morality  and  human  justice. 
A  madman  tears  out  his  hair  and  gnaws  it, — is  he 
to  be  blamed  for  yielding  to  the  pleasure  of  this 
phantasy  ?  Ao,  no  more  than  he  should  be  praised 

*  Nicomachecin  Ethics ,  iii,  13. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  MAN. 


105 


for  controlling  it,  or  at  least  victory  or  defeat  are 
of  very  little  importance  here;  for  they  depend  almost 
entirely  upon  the  intensity,  more  or  less  great,  of 
the  physical  impression.  Now,  natural  passions  are 
as  excusable  as  unhealthy  intemperances. 

Here,  then,  is  a  formal  consecration  of  the  body’s 
triumph  over  the  soul,  of  destiny  over  will.  All  is 
reduced  to  the  knowledge  of  knowing  with  what  com¬ 
plexion  each  is  born.  Gall  had  predecessors  among 
the  ancients.*  Metoscopy  and  physiognomy  were 
the  legitimate  children  of  a  belief  in  fatality;  this 
prejudice  was  so  strong  that  it  inspired  JEscliines  with 
scruples  against  reproaching  Demosthenes  for  his 
cowardice, —  a  trait  for  which  nature  alone  was  re¬ 
sponsible.  “It  wrill  perhaps  be  surprising,”  said  he, 
“  that  we  should  prosecute  a  man  for  a  vice  attributable 
to  nature  (<pu<jzioq  ypacpai).”  And  in  fact  if  natural  dis¬ 
positions  are  sovereign  in  this  respect,  is  it  logical 
to  bring  men  controlled  by  them  before  the  courts? 
Was  Isocrates,  then,  justified  in  stigmatizing  the  in¬ 
nate  baseness  of  the  Barbarians,  or  Demosthenes  in 
doing  honor  to  the  Athenians  for  having  obeyed  the 
generous  impulses  of  their  natural  character  ?  The 
ancients,  in  general,  under  the  weight  of  dogmas  and 
fatality,  ill-knew  and  ill-defined  human  liberty.  Aris¬ 
totle  attributed  it  to  original  inclinations;  his  theory 
opens  the  door  to  the  convenient  excuse  of  necessity,  f 

*  See  Aristotle,  History  of  Animals  i,  9,  and  the  Elder  Pliny  (Book 
xi,  114),  here  a  compiler  of  the  Stagirite  and  of  Trogus  Pompeius. 

f  “I  think  that  there  does  not  exist,  that  there  never  has  existed, 
any  art  capable  of  making  men  who  are  horn  depraved  conform  to 
justice  and  virtue.”  (Isocrates.)  Seneca’s  maxim,  Arsest  bonum fieri ,  is 
nearer  the  truth.  “  With  necessity  all  is  well  ”  ;  this  is  the  conclusion 
of  grave  Pindar  celebrating  the  ex-voto  of  a  happy  lover,  and  an  hun¬ 
dred  young  courtesans  brought  by  Xeneplion  to  the  sacred  grove  of 


106 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


We  cannot  absolutely  say  with  Socrates  that  cour¬ 
age,  no  more  than  virtue,  is  a  science.  For  courage, 
in  a  great  measure,  depends  on  temperament;  but 
are  flesh  and  blood  the  ruling  power  in  man  ?  The 
sovereignty  of  instinct  prevents  perfectness  in  ani¬ 
mals.  Never  will  the  hare  of  the  fabulist  be  a  thunder¬ 
bolt  of  war,  whatever  he  may  think  of  it,  even  by 
comparison.  But  liberty  gives  to  man  the  power  of 
ruling  his  physical  complexion.  Socrates,  by  his 
confessions,  justified  Zopyrus,  the  Lavater  of  his 
times;  but  the  vigor  of  his  mind  surmounted  nature. 
Whoever  is  born  without  courage  ought  to  acquire 
it.  Turenne  felt  his  carcass  agitated  on  the  battle-field; 
he  ruled  it  by  throwing  it  into  the  greatest  danger.* 
The  man  of  courage  conducts  his  body  where  he 
pleases,  and  moulds  it  to  his  liking.  Did  not  De¬ 
mosthenes  conquer  rebellious  organs  ?  Did  he  not 
resist,  at  his  will,  the  allurement  of  pleasure  and  ac¬ 
quire  his  eloquence  by  the  power  of  his  will  ?  So 
strongly  organized  a  mind  was  in  all  respects  worthy 
of  repairing  nature’s  work.  In  a  city  where  the  poets 
(Æschylus  and  Sophocles)  skillfully  handled  the  lyre 

Cypris.  Pindar  here  speaks  like  an  oracle:  “There  is  in  Pliocis  a 
temple  to  Hercules  Misogynes,  and  its  priest  is  bound  to  be  chaste 
during  the  year  of  his  ministry.  Thus  old  men  are  ordinarily  chosen 
as  priests.  In  later  times,  a  young  man  of  noble  birth  and  mild 
temper  secured  the  priesthood.  He  was  at  the  time  in  love  with  a 
young  lady  whom  lie  took  great  care  to  shun.  One  day  she  came 
to  surprise  him  at  the  hour  of  repose,  after  the  dance  and  festival- 
lie  vais  unfortunate  enough  to  forget  himself.  Seized  with  trouble 
and  fear  he  ran  toward  the  oracle,  and  inquired  if  there  was  any 
means  by  which  he  could  expiate  his  crime.  He  received  the  fol¬ 
lowing  answer:  The  god  'pardons  all  that  is  necessary .”  (Plutarch, 
Why  Pythia  no  longer  gives  her  oracles  in  verse.) 

*  “Thou  tremblest,  carcass!  Thou  wouldst  tremble  much  more  if 
thou  knewest  where  I  am  about,  to  conduct  thee.” 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  MAN. 


107 


and  sword  in  tlieir  turn,  he  could  have  united  the 
two  qualities  necessary  to  a  Grecian  statesman.*  lie 
ought  to  have  done  it;  he  was  competent  to  do 
it.  Ilis  entire  life,  save  Chæronea,  and  his  death 
prove  it.  Isocrates,  according  to  tradition,  punished 
himself  for  his  great  illusions  by  permitting  himself 
to  perish  of  starvation.  Euphræus,  a  clear-sighted 
patriot,  a  ridiculed  prophet,  “cut  his  throat,”  and 
thereby  proved  his  sincerity.  Demosthenes  preferred 
a  bitter  struggle  to  a  fortunate  submission.  This 
timid  man  braved  Philip  and  Alexander;  he  pro¬ 
voked  Antipater’s  deadly  wrath.  Was  this  the  con¬ 
duct  of  a  man  without  courage  f  In  the  silence  of 
moral  deliberation,  face  to  face  with  honesty,  his 
soul,  inaccessible  to  fear,  yielded  to  the  calls  of 
duty.;);  In  the  midst  of  the  unaccustomed  clash  of 
arms,  his  body  regained  its  empire,  and  the  great 
emotion  of  combat,  which  sometimes  makes  cowards 
forget  their  fear,  deprived  him  of  his  firmness.  The 
Athenians  pardoned  this  surprise  of  the  senses;  let 
us  regret  it  without  branding  him  with  injurious  re¬ 
proaches  which  his  enemies  lavished  upon  him.  Let 
us  rather  reflect  on  the  grief  by  which  the  patriot’s 
soul  was  certainly  penetrated  at  that  moment  when, 
deceived  in  his  dearest  hopes,  he  quitted  the  battle¬ 
field  on  which  the  liberty  of  the  ILellenes  was  en¬ 
tombed  forever. 

*  MûOcwze  prjTÏjp  e/isvac  TTp-qy.zrjpd  zs  è’pyajv.  Iliad,  ix,  443;  Ora- 
tovem  verborum  actoremque  rerum.  (Cicero.) 

f  When  the  Macedonian’s  assassins,  at  the  threshold  of  Neptune’s 
temple,  were  about  to  kill  him  and  he  asked  of  them  a  few  moments’ 
respite,  they  insulted  him;  they  were  ignorant  of  what  he  was  about 
to  do.  (Plutarch,  Life  of  Demosthenes,  chap.  29.) 

X  Too  zà  ôéovza  -utsîv  opprjv. 


108  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

Thirteen  years  later  (325)  Demosthenes  withdrew 
from  his  native  soil,  vanquished  this  time  by  his  ene¬ 
mies’  hatred.  Condemned  at  the  trial  of  Harpalus  to 
pay  a  tine  of  fifty  talents,  then  thrown  into  prison  as 
insolvent,  he  succeeded  in  escaping  from  it  and  depart¬ 
ing  from  Attica.  He  could  undoubtedly  have  found 
relief  from  the  chagrin  of  exile  in  the  consciousness 
of  his  devotion  to  the  Athenians  and  in  the  thought 
of  their  ingratitude.  Nevertheless  his  eyes  could  not 
turn  toward  Attica  without  shedding  tears.  Plutarch 
blames  him  for  having  shown  such  manifestations  of 
weakness  during  his  exile,  ill  according  with  the  fiery 
energy  of  his  administration.  This  tenderness  was  not 
at  all  surprising  in  so  sensitive  a  soul.  Dishonored 
and  separated  from  Athens,  Demosthenes  did  not  con¬ 
ceal  his  affliction,  but  his  grief  remained  dignified.  He 
submitted  to  the  unjust  arrest  by  his  country  with  a 
filial  respect  which  recalls  the  Crito. 

“  Do  not  think  that  these  orations  have  inspired  me  with 
anger.  I  do  not  wish  to  he  irritated  against  you,  but  com¬ 
plaint  offers  a  kind  of  solace  to  the  victims  of  injustice,  as 
weeping  does  to  the  sick.  I  have  affection  for  you,  which  I 
might  wish  }^ou  had  for  me.  Such  has  been,  such  ever  will 
be,  my  maxim.  From  the  beginning  I  thought  that  every 
man  connected  with  public  affairs,  if  he  was  a  good  citizen, 
ought  to  hold  in  respect  to  all  members  of  the  city,  the  feel¬ 
ings  of  a  son  toward  his  parents.  He  will  hope  to  find  them 
as  equitable  as  possible,  but  he  will  bear  with  them,  such  as 
they  are,  with  a  benevolent  resignation.  Defeat  in  such  a 
case  is  a  grand  and  honorable  victory  in  the  eyes  of  the  wise. 
Be  happy.”  * 

Demosthenes’  piety  toward  liis  country  was  natural¬ 
ly  associated  with  piety  toward  the  gods.  At  first  a 


*  Third  Letter,  §  10. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  MAN. 


109 


fugitive  at  Troezen,  he  leaves  this  place  for  a  safer 
asylum,  Neptune’s  temple  at  Calauria.  “  Respect 
toward  the  god  will,  I  hope,  furnish  me  a  safeguard. 
And  yet  how  do  I  know  ?  When  we  are  at  the  mercy 
of  another,  we  live  from  day  to  day  without  ever  being 
assured  of  the  morrow.”  These  presentiments  were 
justified.  At  the  moment  when  Antipater’s  soldiers, 
conducted  by  an  old  comedian,  Archias,  surnamed  the 
exile-hunt er  (<puyadoOr/paç'),  invested  the  sanctuary  where 
Demosthenes  had  fled,  the  great  man  at  first  thought 
that  he  ought  not  to  desecrate  the  god’s  threshold. 
He  then  sucked  the  poison  from  his  pen,  which  was 
to  assure  him  a  franchise  more  certain  than  that  of 
Neptune’s  temple.  After  this  he  arose. 

“Now,”  said  he,  “you  may  act  the  part  of  Creon*  in  the 
play  as  soon  as  you  please,  and  cast  out  this  carcass  of  mine 
unburied.  For  my  part,  0  gracious  Neptune!  I  quit  thy 
temple  with  my  breath  within  me,  but  Antipater  and  the 
Macedonians  would  not  have  scrupled  to  profane  it  with 
murder.” 

Demosthenes  succumbed  under  the  enemies  of 
Greece,  and  he  fell  in  protecting  his  country’s  re¬ 
ligion. 

The  foresight  of  this  unworthy  end  of  a  generous 
life  sometimes  inspired  him  with  bitter  feelings.  Young 
men  frequently  visited  him  in  his  exile  and  sought  his 
counsels,  but  he  dissuaded  them  from  public  life. 

“  If  at  the  outset  two  roads  had  been  proposed  to  me,  the 
one  leading  to  the  tribune  and  assemblies,  and  the  other 
direct  to  death,  and  that  I  could  have  foreseen  the  evils, 
fears,  jealousies,  calumnies,  and  struggles  inseparable  from 
public  life,  I  would  have  chosen  the  road  to  death.” 

*  Alluding  to  that  passage  in  the  Antigone  of  Sophocles  where 
Creon  forbids  the  body  of  Polynices  to  be  buried. 


110 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


If  devotion  to  one’s  country  was  always  recom¬ 
pensed,  no  man  could  have  deserved  a  happier  death. 
Cicero,  himself  a  victim  to  the  patriotic  ardor  of  his 
Philippics ,  sketched  from  Plato  the  outlines  of  a  good 
citizen.*  Disinterested  devotion,  which  is  the  prin¬ 
cipal  characteristic  of  the  good  citizen,  was  Demos¬ 
thenes’  eminent  virtue.  UI  am  passing  my  life  in 
giving  you  counsels,  which  place  me  lower  in  your 
estimation  than  many  others,  but  which  would  make 
you  great  if  you  would  follow  them.  I  can  undoubt¬ 
edly  speak  thus  without  exciting  envy.  No,  I  cannot 
reconcile  the  character  of  the  true  patriot  with  a  policy 
which  would  readily  place  me  in  the  first  rank  among 
you  and  you  in  the  last  rank  in  Greece;  but  by  the 
administration  of  faithful  orators  the  country  ought  to 
prosper,  and  their  duty  to  all  is  at  all  times  to  pro¬ 
pose,  not  the  easiest  measure,  but  the  best.  Common 
instinct  will  suffice  to  propose  the  first,  the  wise  ad¬ 
vice  of  a  good  citizen  ought  to  conduct  us  toward  the 
second.”  f 

II.  The  Citizen. — Power  is  the  test  of  character  (a 
saying  of  Bias).  Demosthenes  sustained  this  test  with 
honor.  The  man  of  the  people,  as  he  calls  himself  in 
an  exordium,  was  the  most  useful  servant  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  whom  he  wished  to  save.  Faithful  to  a  promise 
made  to  the  judges  of  Apliobus,  “scarcely  had  he 
grown  from  infancy  ”  when  he  contributed  and  sup¬ 
ported  the  public  charges.  When  a  man,  he  aided  the 
state  not  only  by  his  counsels,  but  also  by  his  funds. 
He  ecpiipped  three  galleys  for  the  expeditions  to  Eu¬ 
boea,  to  the  Hellespont,  and  to  Byzantium;  he  turned 
eight  talents  into  the  public  treasury;  he  ransomed 

*  Be  OJiciis,  i,  25.  f  Oration  on  the  Chersonesus,  §  72. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  CITIZEN. 


Ill 


Athenian  prisoners  in  Macedonia;  lie  gave  doweries  to 
poor  daughters,  and  went  hail  for  insolvent  citizens. 
After  Chæronea  Demosthenes  alone  furnished  three  of 
the  ten  talents  appropriated  for  repairing  the  walls. 
He  wasted  his  fortune  on  private  individuals  and  on 
the  state  to  such  an  extent  that  he  was  unable  in  his 
turn  to  pay  the  fine  imposed  upon  him  by  the  Areopa¬ 
gus.  But  these  were  not  the  claims  which  he  believed 
he  ought  to  plead  with  his  fellow  citizens:  he  did  not 
imitate  the  selfish  orators  who  preferred  their  own  in¬ 
terest  with  the  people  and  with  Philip  to  the  safety  of 
the  state.  It  is  in  the  following  that  he  gloried: — he 
always  contended  with  them  and  refuted  them  with 
boldness, —  among  others  Python  of  Byzantium,  the 
Macedonians’  regular  ambassador,  and  Pytheas  of  Ar¬ 
cadia,  a  treacherous  democrat  in  the  pay  of  Philip. 
While  these  mercenaries  were  stirring  up  hatreds,  ce¬ 
menting  discord  among  the  cities,  Demosthenes  was 
laboring  to  efface  hostilities,  to  foment  coalitions,  and 
to  conclude  alliances.  Greece  was  still  less  united 
against  the  Macedonians  than  she  had  been  against  the 
Barbarians;  the  motto,  each  one  in  his  own  house ,  each 
one  for  himself  \  had  then  become  general.  And  so, 
instead  of  all  contending  together  and  at  the  same 
time,  she  exhausted  herself  in  isolated  a;id  successive 
efforts.  Athens  fought  at  Chæronea  in  338,  Thebes 
revolted  in  335,  Sparta  with  Agis  struck  for  deliver¬ 
ance  in  330.  Each  of  the  capital  cities  contended 
alone  and  at  its  own  time;  no  powerful  movement  in 
unison. 

These  practices  of  individual  efforts,  so  fatal  to  Hel¬ 
lenic  interests,  were  instinctive  among  the  Greeks. 
The  cities,  in  their  turn  leaders  of  the  hegemony,  con¬ 
tributed  to  establish  them.  4  4  It  is  of  importance  to 


112 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


our  city  that  Thebes  and  Lacedæmon  do  not  become 
too  powerful;  that  the  first  should  have  to  contend 
against  Pliocis,  the  second  against  other  enemies. 
These  are  the  conditions  of  our  security  and  of  our 
greatness.”  Demosthenes,  in  352,  had  not  yet  seen  that 
these  maxims,  favorable  to  the  preeminence  of  his  own 
city,  were  preparing  the  overthrow  of  Greece;  later 
he  strove  to  reunite  what  political  selfishness  had 
studied  to  sever.  What  Athens  had  done  for  her  own 
aggrandizement  Philip  used  against  her.  His  aim  was 
to  divide;  Demosthenes’,  to  reconcile.  The  Hellenic 
family,  a  privileged  race,  endowed  with  the  national 
qualities  of  Europe  and  Asia,  might  have  been  able,  if 
united  into  one  state,  to  rule  the  universe.*  Demos¬ 
thenes  did  not  dream  of  universal  rule  for  her;  fortu¬ 
nate  if  she  found  power  to  sever  herself  from  Philip’s 
embrace.  On  the  ground  of  reconciliation  the  orator 
succeeded  once  in  conquering;  he  triumphed  over  the 
mutual  antipathy  of  Athens  and  Thebes,  and  united 
them  against  the  invader.  This  alliance  had  for  a  long 
time  been  the  dream  of  far-sighted  citizens.  Æs chi¬ 
nes  names  six  political  persons  who,  before  Demosthe¬ 
nes,  had  endeavored  to  bring  it  about,  but  none  suc¬ 
ceeded.  “  The  occasion,  fear,  and  want”  compelled 
the  Thebans  to  accept  it:  they  saw  war  at  their  gates. 
Demosthenes,  said  Æschines,  cannot  therefore  claim 
the  honor.  He  did,  however,  claim  it;  to  him  alone 
was  due  an  unhoped  for  success  which  caused  Philip’s 
star  to  grow  pale  for  a  moment,  and  which  the  orator 
considered  the  grandest  triumph  of  his  life. 

Demosthenes’  indefatigable  activity  embraced  all  di¬ 
visions  of  the  state:  marine,  land  forces,  finances, 
and  the  administration.  He  is  always  in  the  breach; 

*  Aristotle,  Politics ,  iv,  6. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  CITIZEN. 


113 


at  tlie  least  attempt  of  Philip  he  proposes  either  em¬ 
bassies  or  expeditions.  If  Philip  sends  envoys,  De¬ 
mosthenes  refutes  them.  If  Philip  hires  negotiators 
at  Athens,  Demosthenes  unmasks  them.  When  Philip 
sends  an  emissary,  Antiphon,  to  burn  the  arsenals  of 
the  Piræus,  Demosthenes,  ever  on  the  watch,  seizes 
him  and  has  him  condemned  to  death.  A  watchful 
patriot,  he  anticipates  Philip,  and  reveals  his  plans. 
He  can  anticipate  and  foresee  all.  He  is  not  one  of 
those  experts  who,  while  serving  the  commonwealth, 
guard  their  retreats  and  fortify  themselves  beforehand 
against  the  accidents  of  the  future.  He  gives  himself 
up  to  his  task  without  consideration  or  after-thought; 
he  has  no  other  care  than  his  duty  and  his  country’s 
safety.  He  alone  provides  for  all.  He  proposes  a 
resolution,  draws  up  the  decree,  and  charges  himself 
with  its  execution.*  He  follows  the  Macedonian  step 
by  step;  he  throws  himself  in  the  way  of  all  his  de¬ 
signs;  he  arrests  his  course  at  Ambracia,  and  again  at 

*  The  spirit  of  the  Athenian  democracy  was  equality  of  rights 
and  duties,  whence  the  distribution  of  public  functions  by  lot, 
the  obligation  of  not  tilling  important  offices  several  times  in 
succession,  and  finally  the  distribution  of  public  authority:  several 
citizens  share  the  different  parts  of  the  same  political  action.  One 
proposes,  a  second  has  it  decreed,  a  third  executes.  The  duties  as¬ 
signed  in  certain  modern  constitutions  to  the  cabinet,  to  parliament, 
and  to  the  executive  power,  are  divided  among  three  citizens  or  three 
groups  of  citizens.  The  Athenians  found  a  double  advantage  in  this 
distribution  of  rôles.  The  honor  of  the  enterprise,  in  case  of  suc¬ 
cess,  did  not  fall  to  one  alone:  in  case  of  failure  the  responsibilities 
were  shared  by  several.  Demosthenes  sometimes  recoiled  from  the 
responsibility  of  a  decree,  and  his  enemies  attributed  this  prudence 
to  his  timidity.  Sometimes,  also,  in  pressing  dangers,  when  no  one 
dared  to  share  it  with  him,  he  took  all  upon  himself.  He  took  into  his 
own  hand  all  powers,  as  he  did  at  the  time  of  the  Theban  alliance:  rov 
(. ruMrjfidrjv  à~â(7aq  ràç  'AOrjvrjaiv  apyaq,  apyovra.  ( Against  Ctesi- 
phon.) 


5* 


114 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Byzantium.  It  is  lie  who  organizes  Phocion’s  victory 
in  Euboea.  “  Philip  has  been  driven  from  Euboea  by 
your  arms,  and  also  (certain  envious  aspirants  ought 
to  choke  with  anger)  by  my  policy  and  decrees.”  It  is 
he  who,  at  the  greatest  crisis,  is  the  inspirer  and  soul 
of  all  Greece.  “  Who  will  save  the  Hellespont  from 
the  rule  of  a  foreigner?  You  will,  men  of  Athens! 
When  I  say  you,  I  mean  the  commonwealth.  How 
who  consecrated  his  orations,  his  counsels,  his  labors 
to  the  commonwealth  ?  Who  devoted  himself  entirely 
to  it?  I!  ”  After  the  fall  of  Elatea  (339-338),  in  the 
midst  of  the  city’s  agonies,  the  herald,  the  voice  of  the 
country  in  distress,  calls  the  good  citizens  to  the  trib¬ 
une.  Ho  one  dares  to  mount  it.  Who  courageously 
seized  the  helm  at  the  approach  ôf  the  storm  ?  u  It  was 
I  !  ”  It  is  Demosthenes,  always  Demosthenes.  He  is 
everywhere.*  Why  this  ardor  to  place  himself  fore¬ 
most  at  the  post  of  danger  ?  It  is  from  his  conviction 
that  his  devotion  is  necessary  to  the  state.  “I  have 
persuaded  myself,  perhaps  it  was  foolish,  but  in  short 
I  have  persuaded  myself  that  no  man  could  propose 
anything  better  than  what  I  proposed;  that  none  could 
do  anything  better  than  what  I  did.”  Was  this  pre¬ 
sumption  on  his  part  ?  Ho  !  The  very  defeat  at  Chæ- 
ronea  justified  him  in  it.  He  always  spoke  to  the 
Athenians  in  the  name  of  honor;  it  was  due  to  him 
that  her  honor  at  least  was  saved. 

At  Philip’s  death,  Demosthenes,  an  irreconcilable 
enemy  of  the  Macedonians,  endeavors  to  arouse 
Greece  against  them.  Alexander,  u  the  youth,”  re¬ 
veals  his  intentions  by  the  sack  of  Thebes.  Greece 
has  only  changed  her  master:  she  receives  a  new 
one,  and  a  more  terrible  one.  At  Alexander’s  death, 

*  Pro  Corona ,  passim. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  CITIZEN. 


115 


Demosthenes,  then  in  exile,  hastens  to  Greece  and 
manifests  all  the  ardor  of  his  youth  against  the  con¬ 
querors  of  his  country.  He  encourages  the  ambassa¬ 
dors  at  Athens  to  form  a  new  league,  and  he  visits 
the  cities  in  person,  summoning  them  to  liberty. 
Everywhere  he  searches  for  enemies  against  Mace¬ 
donia,  as  Hannibal  traversed  the  earth  to  arouse 
enemies  against  the  Homans.  Even  the  time  of  his 
banishment  was  not  lost  to  the  contest  which  had 
become  his  life.  At  the  Olympic  games,  Isocrates, 
a  childish  old  man,  preached  the  crusade  against  the 
Persians  and  peace  with  the  Macedonians.*  Demos¬ 
thenes  made  better  use  of  his  eloquence.  Lamachus, 
of  Myrrlienus,  was  reciting  before  the  assembled 
Greeks  a  panegyric  on  Philip  and  Alexander,  in  which 
Thebes  and  Olynthus  were  vilified.  Demosthenes 
arose:  by  facts  and  reasoning  he  proved,  on  that  great 
day,  the  claims  of  the  two  cities  to  the  respect  of  the 
Hellenes,  and  the  calamities  due  to  the  flatterers  of  the 
Macedonians.  The  auditors  turned  around  and  cheered 
Demosthenes  with  enthusiasm.  The  sophist,  fright¬ 
ened  by  the  tumult,  escaped  from  the  assembly;  De¬ 
mosthenes  thus  avenged  himself  on  the  ingratitude 
of  his  fellow-citizens.  Cicero  passed  the  whole  time 

*  Philip  lias  kidnapped  Amphipolis;  Isocrates  excuses  him  for 
having  taken  his  precautions  against  Athens:  “If  we  change  our 
conduct  toward  him  and  give  him  a  better  opinion  of  us,  he  will 
not  only  not  touch  our  territory,  but  he  will  be  the  first  to  yield  us 
some  of  his  own,  in  order  to  gain  the  useful  friendship  of  Athens.” 
(On  the  Peace.)  Farther  on:  “Let  us  renounce  the  hegemony;  in¬ 
fluenced  by  this  disinterestedness,  the  people  of  their  own  accord 
will  offer  it  to  us.”  Are  we  to  believe  that  an  Athenian,  a  rhetorician, 
can  be  so  innocent  ?  Manifestations  of  aged  simplicity  are  not  rare 
in  Isocrates.  He  himself  felt  that  he  was  the  least  fitted  of  all  the 
Athenians  for  public  life.  “  I  have  not  sufficient  voice  or  hardiness.” 
There  was  still  another  quality  wanting  in  him.  ( Address  to  Philip.) 


116 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


of  his  exile  in  Macedonia,  and  in  the  greatest  idle¬ 
ness;  Demosthenes’  exile  was  a  continuation  of  his 
public  administration:  “  he  went  to  several  cities  of 
Greece,  strengthened  the  common  interest,  and  de¬ 
feated  the  designs  of  the  Macedonian  ambassadors; 
in  which  respect  he  manifested  a  much  greater  re¬ 
gard  for  his  country  than  did  Tliemistocles  and  Alci¬ 
biades,  when  suffering  the  same  misfortune.  After 
his  return,  he  pursued  his  former  plan  of  government, 
and  continued  the  war  with  Antipater  and  the  Mace¬ 
donians.*  An  adversary  of  this  character  was  not 
one  of  those  who  could  he  bought.  Philip  could  not 
silence  him  with  his  gold.  Alexander  meant  to  put 
an  end  to  the  seditious  and  incorrigible  orator,  and 
demanded  his  head.  Phocion  had  the  shameless  cour¬ 
age  to  vote  that  he  should  be  delivered  up;  a  cun¬ 
ning  evasion  on  the  part  of  Demades  spared  the 
Athenians  this  crime.  Later,  Antipater  wrested  from 
their  impotency  the  proscription  of  the  orator  who 
was  ever  dreaded,  even  when  the  Hellenes  wrere  held 
in  bondage.  Demosthenes  escaped  the  sword  of  the 
soldiers  sent  in  his  pursuit,  as  he  had  often  before  been 
obliged  to  ward  oft*  the  blows  with  which  the  Mace¬ 
donians  of  Athens  had  attempted  to  crush  him.  Many 
a  time  summoned  to  justice  before  Chæronea,  lie  was 
assailed  on  all  sides  after  the  disaster.  This  was  a 
dreadful  exasperation.  UI  was  accused  nearly  every 
day,”f  and  with  what  hatred,  the  invectives  of  Dinar- 

*  Plutarch,  Comparison  between.  Demosthenes  and  Cicero ,  ch.  4. 

f  Where  there  were  so  many  laws  and  decrees,  often  contradictory, 
passed  by  the  people  in  moments  of  excitement,  it  was  difficult  for 
an  author  of  a  new  law  to  avoid  stumbling  against  the  dangers  of  a 
previous  law.  Whence  that  accusation,  so  frequent,  of  infringement 
upon  laws,  napav<i/j.wv.  Give  me  two  lines  of  an  Athenian  decree, 
and  I  will  hang  its  author.  The  general  Aristophon,  of  Azenia, 


DEMOSTHENES - TIIE  CITIZEN. 


117 


chus  and  Æschines  can  give  some  idea.  Notwith¬ 
standing  the  odious  address  of  these  imputations, 
which  were  the  fermentations  of  unhealthy  passions 
and  selfish  resentments,  Athens,  which  had  not  the 
courage  to  follow  Demosthenes1  counsels  in  time,  had 
not  the  cowardice,  at  least,  to  abandon  him  to  his 
enemies.  She  respected  in  him  the  virtues  which  she 
did  not  possess  herself  ;  she  remembered  the  crowns 
which  she  had  decreed  him  in  return  for  the  successes 
to  which  he  had  led  her. 

i  ;  '  *  1  ‘  ,  *  k  •  »  »  '  '  •'  {  »  *  ‘  .  ♦  *  *  /  H  1  * 1  ’•  *  '  ?  *  •  *  /  »  • 

boasted  that  he  had  undergone  sixty-five  accusations  as  an  infringer 
of  laws:  he  was  acquitted  sixty-five  times.  Cephalus  vras  never  ac¬ 
cused  :  he  was  cited  as  a  prodigy.  (Cf.  Aristotle,  Politics ,  vi,  4.) 


»  «  i 


CHAPTER  IV. 


DEMOSTHENES  — THE  STATESMAN. 

11  To  ftélriGTov  às'i, /j.i]  to  paarov  liystv:  Counsel  the  best  always, 
the  easiest  never.”  ( Oration  on  the  Chersonesus.) 

BORN  in  385,  Demosthenes,  at  tlie  age  of  thirty, 
by  his  oration  against  the  law  of  Leptines  (355), 
entered  upon  a  political  career  that  proved  to  be  both 
glorious  and  bitter.  Lucian  put  these  words  into 
Philip’s  mouth:  “What  Themistocles  and  Pericles 
were  once  for  the  Athenians,  Demosthenes  is  now  for 
his  fellow  citizens.”  By  this  Philip  meant  that  De¬ 
mosthenes  was  his  country’s  bulwark.  Upon  a  closer 
examination  the  comparison  is  still  good.  Like  The¬ 
mistocles  and  Pericles,  Demosthenes  had  both  eloquence 
and  experience  in  state  alfairs,  a  union  always  good, 
but  especially  so  for  the  Athenians,  among  whom  ora¬ 
tory  had  rapidly  declined  into  a  pretty  exercise  or  an 
instrument  of  popularity.  In  Demosthenes  the  orator 
was  merely  auxiliary  to  the  statesman.  He  never 
talked  to  gain  success  at  the  tribune,  but  to  reform, 
organize,  and  create  resources.  At  thirty-one  (354) 
he  submitted  to  the  people  a  scheme  of  maritime  re¬ 
organization  (  On  the  Navy  Boards ),  the  following  year 
a  proposal  to  reorganize  the  land  force.  When  he 
advised  to  begin  war,  he  at  once  explained  the  plans 
of  campaign.  He  reproved  the  Athenians..  “But 
what  shall  we  do?”  they  asked  him.  “The  contrary 
to  what  you  are  doing.”  To  this  reply,  excellent  and 

decisive,  but  a  little  compendious,  he  added  immedi- 

118 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


119 


ately:  u  I  will  enter  into  all  the  details,  nevertheless, 
and  may  you  he  as  prompt  to  act  as  to  question.” 
Having  established  the  necessity  of  levies,  he  ex¬ 
claimed:  “What  will  be  these  troops,  their  number, 
the  subsidies  destined  to  sustain  them  ?  How  shall 
these  measures  be  executed  ?  I  will  explain  all  and 
in  order.” 

I.  Political  sagacity  never  deserted  Demosthenes.  ^ 
Leptines  wished,  in  the  name  of  equity  and  the  reve¬ 
nues,  to  reform  the  laws  of  exemption.  Demosthenes 
proved  that  his  zeal  mistook  the  true  interests  of  the 
commonwealth.  Athens  was  prosperous,  but  was  her 
prosperity  assured  forever?  “Those  who  delivered 
Pydna,  Potidæa,  and  other  strongholds  up  to  Philip, 
what  motive  induced  them  to  injure  us?  Was  it  not 
evidently  a  hope  of  a  prince’s  largesses?  Would  it 
not  be  better,  Leptines,  to  persuade  our  enemy,  if  you 
could,  not  to  reward  those  good  servants,  instruments 
of  his  own  wrongs  to  us,  than  to  propose  a  law  that 
takes  away  a  part  of  the  gifts  derived  from  bene¬ 
factors  ?  *  *  *  Athenians,  fear  to  sanction  an  evil 
law.  If  successful,  Athens  would  be  disgraced;  if  un¬ 
fortunate,  she  would  be  deprived  of  her  defenders.” 
Ho  war  !  cries  a  politician  and  short-sighted  econo¬ 
mist.  War  is  a  waste  of  our  revenues.  We  must 
prevent  extortions  or  correct  them.  Impoverishment 
of  treasure  lost  not  Oræa  and  Olynthus;  but  treason  and 
improvidence.  But  war  costs  dearly.  It  will  cost 
more  to  recede  before  the  expenses  it  requires.  Is 
not  Athens  rich  enough  to  pay  for  safety  ?  *  Another 

*  Oration  on  the  Chersonesus.  An  effort  to  give  a  portion  of  his 
revenue  to  save  all  her  possessions  is,  then,  truly  magnanimous.  “  Ah, 
gentlemen!  it  is  simple  arithmetic.  He  who  will  hesitate  can  only 
disarm  our  indignation  by  the  contempt  which  his  stupidity  in¬ 
spires.”  (Mirabeau:  Session  of  September  26,  1789  ) 


120  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

time  warlike  humor  pervades  the  assembly.  War  is 
decreed  and  in  gigantic  proportions.  We  speak  of 
ten,  of  twenty  thousand  mercenaries, —  armies  magnifi¬ 
cent  upon  paper  (i-i<jToXi;j.a[ouq  dovdfisiq).  Such  zeal  in- 
spires  little  confidence  in  Demosthenes.  “You  be¬ 
lieve  you  cannot  do  too  much.  Begin  with  a  little, 
and  if  that  is  not  sufficient  add  what  is  needed.  Of 
what  good  is  too  great  an  army  ?  You  could  not 
support  it.  Let  Athens’  actions  be  measured  by  her 
resources  and  necessities.  At  first  we  must  carry  on 
a  piratical  war  (XrjtTTsbeiv).  Ordinary  forces  will  suffice 
for  that.  Macedonia  greatly  favors  it.  Philip  has 
the  advantage  in  pitched  battles.”  History  has  been 
called  the  master  of  life,  the  dangerous  school  where 
we  learn  both  good  and  bad  lessons.  The  true  master 
of  human  life  is  good  sense.  With  Demosthenes  pa¬ 
thetic  good  sense  made  the  orator,  and  shrewd  good 
sense  the  statesman. 

Demosthenes  had  a  strong  judgment,  never  influ- 
encecPby  favor  or  resentment.  He  discerned  the  good 
ancDsupported  it  with  the  cool  firmness  of  a  statesman 
who  subordinates  all  feeling  to  the  public  weal.  Thus 
he  successfully  resisted  a  peoj^le  always  ready  to  sacri¬ 
fice  public  policy  to  sentiment.  Philip  planned  the 
siege  of  Byzantium,  which  had  revolted  from  the  rule 
of  Athens.  The  people  were  little  interested  in  the 
fate  of  the  rebel  city.  “By  heavens  !  These  people, 
misled  by  an  evil  genius,  carry  their  folly  beyond 
all  bounds.  Agreed,  but  I  admit-  that  we  must  spare 
these  fools,  for  the  safety  of  Athens  is  at  stake.” 
Arcliidamus,  king  of  Sparta,  was  about  to  attack  Me¬ 
galopolis,  a  city  of  Arcadia,  allied  to  Thebes.  Some 
orators  pleaded  for  Arcadia,  and  others  for  Lacedae¬ 
mon,  with  bitterness  and  passion.  Were  it  not  for 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


121 


their  Attic  tongue  they  would  have  been  mistaken 
for  citizens  of  these  two  countries.  No  one  spoke  for 
Athens.  Megalopolis  had  recently  fought  Athens. 
Let  us  forget  the  past.  The  interests  of  the  common¬ 
wealth  lie  in  the  weakness  of  Sparta  and  Thebes,  our 
neighbors.  It  was  necessary  to  succor  Megalopolis. 
Rhodes  in  the  social  war  had  escaped  from  the  au¬ 
thority  of  Athens  and  substituted  an  oligarchic  for  a 
democratic  form  of  government.  Oppressed  by  aris¬ 
tocracy,  the  people  of  Rhodes  implored  aid  of  Athens. 
Athens  ought  to  have  aided  them.  She  would  have 
conciliated  all  popular  governments  and  strengthened 
her  own  constitution,  of  which  oligarchy  was  the  im¬ 
placable  enemy.  The  Rhodians  failed,  but  they  were 
unfortunate.  ‘‘Shall  we  say  that  the  Rhodians  merit 
their  misfortune  ?  The  time  is  not  well  chosen  for 
us  to  rejoice.  In  prosperity  we  should  show  great 
benevolence  to  the  unfortunate,  for  the  future  is  veiled 
to  all  men.”  It  was  necessary,  then,  to  fight  for  the 
liberty  of  the  Rhodians,  and  in  a  manner  worthy  of 
Athens.  “You  listen  joyfully  to  eulogies  of  our  an¬ 
cestors,  you  contemplate  their  exploits  and  their  tro¬ 
phies.  Now  know  that  these  trophies  were  erected  to 
inspire  in  you  no  sterile  admiration,  but  a  desire 
to  imitate  the  virtues  of  the  heroes  who  consecrated 
them.”  Later,  Demosthenes  would  have  persuaded 
the  citizens  to  follow,  in  regard  to  Thebes,  this  course 
of  intelligent  generosity.  When  he  expressed  that 
sentiment  it  was  to  unite  it  with  practical  reason. 
The  well  ordered  interests  of  the  state  were  always 
the  decisive  rule  of  his  counsels.  When  the  ques¬ 
tion  was  Lacedæmon,  or  “accursed  Euboea,”  or  “im¬ 
pious”  Phocis,  as  Æschines  called  it,  Demosthenes 
did  not  care  to  consider  “the  virtue”  of  the  threat- 


122 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


ened  people,  but  only  Athens’  duty  in  not  dishonoring 
herself  by  refusing  her  aid  to  oppressed  Greeks. 

The  political  sagacity  of  Demosthenes  never  knew 
the  ingenious  prejudice  or  selfishness  of  narrow  souls. 
One  of  the  special  arguments  of  Philip’s  partisan  ora¬ 
tors  was  that  it  had  been  necessary  for  them  to  use 
his  power  in  order  to  punish  the  barbarians.  Demos¬ 
thenes,  more  sincere  and  judicious,  persuaded  the 
Athenians  not  to  make  war  upon  the  Great  King 
(354). 

“  For  the  sake  of  our  welfare,  in  the  name  of  the  troubles 
and  suspicions  sown  in  Greece,  do  not  assail  him.  If  we 
Could  throw  ourselves  upon  him  with  one  accord,  I  would 
say,  Attack  him,  ’tis  right;  but  since  unity  does  not  exist,  let 
us  not  give  the  king  one  pretext  for  making  himself  arbiter 
of  the  rights  of  other  Greeks.  When  tranquil,  we  make 
him  suspected  of  a  desire  to  attempt  perhaps  a  thing  of  that 
kind  ;  when  we  attack,  we  authorize  him  to  seek  aid  against 
our  hate  in  the  friendship  of  other  people.  Do  not  expose  the 
loounds  of  Greece  by  an  appeal  to  arms,  that  will  never  be 
answered,  nor  by  feeble  hostilities;  rest  calm,  confident,  pre¬ 
pared!  Great  Gods!  let  not  the  monarch  know  that  the 
Hellenes  and  Athenians  are  embarrassed,  discouraged,  and 
alarmed;  truly,  very  far  from  it;  but  let  him  know  that  if 
falsehood,  perjury,  were  not  a  disgrace  in  the  eyes  of  Greeks, 
as  it  is  a  title  of  honor  to  his  followers,  you  would  have 
marched  against  him  long  ago;  and  that,  not  disposed  to  as¬ 
sail  him  now,  for  your  own  sakes,  you  pray  the  Gods  to 
scourge  him  with  the  same  vertigo  which  formerlv  visited  his 
ancestors.  If  he  happens  to  consider,  he  will  see  that  your 
resolutions  lack  no  wisdom/’  * 

In  counselling  the  defiant  and  prudent  attitude,  De¬ 
mosthenes,  having  hardly  entered  upon  his  public  ca- 


*  Oa  the  Navy  Boards. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  STATESMAN. 


123 


reer,  gave  proof  of  sagacity  and  of  elevated  sentiment 
tliat  never  deserted  him. 

Cardinal  Richelieu  allied  himself  to  the  Protestants 
of  Germany,  Francis  the  First  to  the  Turks.  .  Athenian 
Demosthenes  persuaded  the  commonwealth  to  form  an 
alliance  with  the  barbarians. 

“For  all  these  reasons,  I  think  you  should  send  ambassa- 
dors  to  treat  with  the  king;  and  lay  aside  those  idle  preju¬ 
dices  which  have  so  often  been  injurious  to  your  interests, — 
that  lie  is  a  barbarian ,  our  common  enemy ,  and  the  like.  For 
my  own  part,  when  I  find  a  man  apprehending  danger  from 
a  prince  whose  residence  is  in  Tusa  and  Ecbatana,  and  pro¬ 
nouncing  him  the  enemy  of  our  state,  who  formerly  reestab¬ 
lished  its  power,  and  but  now  made  us  such  considerable  offers 
(if  you  rejected  them,  that  was  no  fault  of  his),  and  yet  speaking 
in  another  strain  of  one  who  is  at  our  gates,  who  is  extending 
his  conquests  in  the  very  heart  of  Greece,  the  plunderer  of 
the  Greeks,  I  am  astonished,  and  regard  that  man,  whoever 
he  is,  as  dangerous,  who  doth  not  see  danger  in  Philip.”  * 

Demosthenes,  true  to  himself,  did.  not- hesitate  to  em¬ 
ploy  the  gold  of  the  great  king  against  the  gold  of 
Philip,  at  the  risk  of  being  accused  of  reserving  a  part 
for  himself.  His  fearful  apprehensions  were  at  length 
allayed  by  the  realization  of  his  prophecies,  and  the 
sight  of  Persian  satraps  helping  the  forces  of  Athens  to 
deliver  Perintlius. 

This  same  good  sense,  free  from  all  prejudice  and  fas¬ 
tidious  regard  of  scruples,  shone  out  again  at  the  time 
of  the  accusation  of  Diopithes.  This  general  had  suc¬ 
cessfully,  with  his  own  authority,  but  for  the  benefit  of 
Athens,  attacked  the  Macedonian  cities  of  the  Helles¬ 
pont,  ravaged  maritime  Thrace,  and  imposed  heavy 
contributions  upon  the  Grecian  colonies  of  Asia.  These 


*  Fourth  Philippic. 


124 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


colonies  complained  to  Philip,  already  irritated  by  the 
devastation  of  his  territory.  This  prince  demanded 
justice  of  Athens.  Orators  of  the  Macedonian  party 
accused  Diopithes  of  violating  the  peace  and  law  of  na¬ 
tions.  Demosthenes  defended  him.  The  Athenians 
alone  were  guilty  of  those  actions  imputed  to  the  bold 
general. 

“  We  have  no  desire  to  contribute  onr  own  means,  nor 
courage  to  fight  ourselves,  nor  strength  to  renounce  the 
bounties  of  the  treasure,  and  furnish  Diopithes  the  promised 
supplies;  and  instead  of  rejoicing  in  the  riches  he  has  gath¬ 
ered,  we  discredit  him  with  an  inquisition,  jealous  of  the 
means  he  will  employ,  of  the  course  he  will  pursue,  in  fact, 
of  everything.  If  we  send  him  no  help,  if  he  cannot  sustain 
his  troops  alone,  whence  should  he  expect  supplies?  From 
heaven?  Impossible!  Then  he  must  live  from  what  he 
collects  or  begs  or  borrows.  *  *  *  I  hear  these  rumors: 
He  will  besiege  Candid ,  he  is  betraying  Greeks .  For  such  a 
man  is  full  of  solicitude  for  the  Greeks  of  Asia.  Undoubtedly 
it  is  more  praiseworthy  to  care  for  foreign  land  than  for 
home!  *  *  *  If  Diopithes  committed  these  acts  of  vio¬ 
lence  and  captured  these  vessels,  a  few  lines  from  you,  Athe¬ 
nians,  a  few  lines  can  arrest  him.” 

{  .  .  , 

<  té  *  *  ■ 

Diopithes’  accusers  demanded  the  recall  of  the  gen¬ 
eral  and  the  disbanding  of  his  army.  Splendid  result  ! 
Ask  Philip  if  he  desires  another;  to  answer  his  prayer 
would  be  foolish. 

“  Why  license  Philip  to  do  all  things,  while  he  lets  Attica 
alone,  if  you  will  not  even  permit  Diopithes  to  succor  Thrace 
without  being  accused  of  inciting  war?  But,  by  Jupiter,  say 
the  accusers,  our  mercenaries  and  Diopithes  acted  like  true 
pirates.  Our  duty  is  to  suppress  these  disorders.  Be  it  so: 
admit  it.  I  suppose  the  interests  of  justice  alone  have  prompt¬ 
ed  this  counsel;  but  these  are  my  thoughts;  you  will  accom- 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


125 


plish  the  dissolution  of  one  of  the  armies  of  the  common¬ 
wealth  by  defaming  the  general  who  found  the  means  of 
preserving  it.  Well,  prove  that  Philip  will  also  disband 
his  troops,  if  Athens  listens  to  your  wishes.  *  *  *  Athe¬ 
nians,  do  not  be  deceived;  only  words  and  false  pretexts  are 
given  you;  ’tis  only  plotted  and  contrived  that  you  remain 
inactive  within  and  unarmed  without,  and  permit  Philip  to 
execute  all  his  plans  in  security.” 

Diopitlies  was  maintained  in  liis  command:  a  just  and 
wise  decision,  due  to  tlie  politic  good  sense  of  the  ora¬ 
tor.  Demosthenes  preferred  the  safety  of  Athens  to  a 
great  record  of  scruples.  To  disarm  Diopitlies  before 
Philip,  would  have  been  to  ally  himself  to  the  Macedo¬ 
nians.  Demosthenes  did  not  follow  the  love  of  an  ab¬ 
solute  equity  to  a  candor  that  bordered  upon  desertion. 

II.  Theophrastus  wrote  a  treatise  on  u  Politics 
Adapted  to  Circumstances.”  This  work,  inspired  per¬ 
haps  in  the  contemporary  of  Isocrates  and  Phocion, 
by  the  spirit  that  prompted  the  most  honored  men  of 
Athens  to  submit  to  the  Macedonian  yoke,  was  un¬ 
doubtedly  lost  before  the  time  of  Cicero.  Sinon,  the 
author  of  the  letter  to  Lentulus  (Ad  Familiar  es ,  i,  9), 
would  not  have  failed  to  draw  from  it,  in  behalf  of 
his  political  inconsistencies,  arguments  more  plaus¬ 
ible  than  those  he  borrowed,  by  aid  of  forced  inter¬ 
pretations,  from  certain  maxims  of  Plato.  That  fickle 
and  versatile  spirit,  Cicero,  believed  that  in  changing 
his  friendship  and  policy,  he  never  proved  false  to 
his  principles.  But  weak  in  character,  he  deceived 
himself  as  to  the  true  motives  of  his  political  ma¬ 
noeuvres.  lie  invoked  gratitude  and  resentment,  neces¬ 
sity  and  convenience:  “It  is  not  proper  to  do  violence 
to  our  parents  or  to  our  country.”  In  his  opinion, 
an  honorable  repose  (cum  dignitate  otium)  should 


126  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


be  the  goal  of  all  statesmen.  (He  did  not  attain  it, 
for  lie  was  slain  by  Antony’s  satellites.)  Demos¬ 
thenes  never  hoped  to  pass  his  old  age  in  that  honor¬ 
able  repose.  Like  Cicero,  he  succumbed  to  the  perse¬ 
cution  of  the  heroes  of  the  Philippics ;  but  he  did 
not,  like  him,  essay  the  apology  of  selfish  retractions. 
We  cannot  examine  now  the  long  speech  of  the  in¬ 
constant  friend  of  Pompey  and  Cæsar.  Let  us  take 
only  some  traits  to  which  Demosthenes  would  have 
assented:  uWe  must  know  how  to  follow  the  spirit 
of  our  times.  Behold  the  men  who  have  excelled 
in  the  art  of’ government:  are  they  praised  for  having 
eternally  followed  one  line  of  conduct  ?  Old  sailors 
sometimes  yield  to  the  tempest,  which  carries  them 
still  farther  away  from  port.  When  by  shifting  sail 
and  by  tacking  we  can  reach  the  haven  of  our  hopes,  it 
is  foolish  to  persist  in  our  first  dangerous  course.  So, 
what  we  statesmen  ought  to  propose  for  ourselves, 
is  not  unity  of  language  but  unity  of  purpose.”  For 
Demosthenes  this  unity  of  purpose  was  the  independ¬ 
ence  of  the  Greeks.  Unity  of  language  failed  him 
several  times,  notably  upon  one  memorable  occasion. 

According  to  an  ancient  Athenian  custom,  the  sur¬ 
plus  revenues  of  Athens  were  distributed  among  the 
citizens  who  were  present  at  religious  ceremonies, 
to  encourage  their  attendance,  a  reward  of  two  oboles 
being  given  to  each.  This  diobole ,  a  sort  of  first 
offering  to  devotion,  stimulated  the  religious  zeal  of 
the  Athenians,  as  the  tithes  of  prebends  formerly  re¬ 
warded  canons  for  exactitude  in  office.  This  special 
fund  was  called  the  Theoricon  (Gswpia).  After  the 
Theban  war  the  Athenians,  believing  themselves  se¬ 
cure,  used  the  money  saved,  not  only  in  bestowing 
rights  of  attendance  upon  the  Theories ,  but  in  cele- 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  STATESMAN. 


127 


brating  games  and  admitting  poor  people  to  the  pub¬ 
lic  festivals.  Fearful  that  some  day  they  might  truly 
repent  of  this  change,  they  decreed  capital  punishment 
against  any  orator  who  should  propose  to  modify 
these  dispositions  so  favorable  to  their  pleasures. 
Theatrical  representations  being  part  of  the  ceremony 
of  the  great  Bacchanalian  Dionysia,  for  example,  the 
theoricon  enabled  the  indigent  to  unite  with  their 
devotions  to  Bacchus  the  pleasure  of  listening  to 
Sophocles  and  Aristophanes;  it  warranted  to  the  poor 
their  entrance  into  the  theater.  The  people  of  Athens 
thus  made  their  entertainments  gratuitous  and  sacred. 
Notwithstanding  the  law  of  death,  Demosthenes,  in¬ 
capable  of  prevaricating  silence,  often  found  fault, 
sometimes  with  great  caution,  sometimes  with  marked 
energy,  with  this  wasteful  employment  of  the  finan¬ 
cial  reserves  of  the  republic,  and  he  demanded  that 
they  be  used  to  relieve  the  pressing  necessities  of  the 
war.  One  day  the  orator  justified  these  abuses  which 
he  had  attacked.  How  shall  we  explain  this  unex¬ 
pected  contradiction? — by  the  controlling  spirit  of  all 
Demosthenes’  public  acts,  the  welfare  of  the  State. 
This  question  of  the  theoricon  became  a  source  of 
contention  between  the  wealthy  classes,  whose  con¬ 
tributions  enriched  the  coffers  of  the  state,  and  the 
poor,  who  enjoyed  the  taxes  without  paying  them. 
Isocrates  echoed  the  complaints  of  both  parties,  but 
especially  those  of  the  rich,  whose  condition  u  was 
even  worse  than  that  *of  the  poor.”  Truly,  poverty 
had  become  a  profitable  profession  in  Athens,  an 
enviable  sinecure.  Aristophanes,  in  his  Plutus ,  praised 
poverty  so  highly  from  a  moral  point  of  view,  that 
it  seemed  the  perfection  of  Antisthenes’  maxim:  Pov¬ 
erty  is  a  blessing.  The  Cliarmides  of  Xenophon’s 


128 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Banquet  *  celebrates  its  profits  and  pleasures.  His 
fortune  once  made  him  fear  thieves  and  sycophants. 
Daily  new  taxes  to  be  paid,  and  no  liberty  to  leave 
the  territory.  But  now  that  he  is  ruined,  what  a 
happy  change!  “How  comfortably  I  sleejv,  the  re¬ 
public  has  confidence  in  me;  I  am  no  longer  threat¬ 
ened,  it  is  I  who  threaten  others.  A  free  man,  I 
can  go  or  stay.  I  appear:  the  rich  arise  from  their 
seats,  or  make  room  for  me  in  the  streets.  To-day  I 
resemble  a  tyrant;  I  was  then  a  slave.  Then  I  paid 
tribute  to  the  state;  now  the  state,  my  tributary, 
supports  me.  I  lose  nothing,  for  I  have  nothing,  and 
always  live  in  the  hope  of  bettering  my  fortune. 

In  341,  alarmed  more  than  ever  by  the  dangers  of 
internal  discord  in  the  face  of  an  enemy  daily  increas¬ 
ing,  Demosthenes,  unable  to  conciliate  two  factions, 
pronounced  himself  in  favor  of  the  stronger.  He 
thought  that  the  rich  would  be  more  easily  reconciled 
to  support  the  theoricon  than  the  poor  to  lose  its  pleas¬ 
ures,  and,  in  default  of  a  perfectly  equitable  settle¬ 
ment,  he  chose  a  solution  beneficial  to  the  state.  “An¬ 
other  evil  afflicts  the  republic,  engendering  among  us 
unjust  complaints  and  unbecoming  debates,  and  fur¬ 
nishing  pretexts  for  those  who  do  not  wish  to  fulfill 
their  duty  as  citizens.  (The  rich  say,  instead  of  arm¬ 
ing  the  triremes  at  our  expense,  you  can  arm  them 
with  the  gold  you  get  out  of  us  to  amuse  the  prolé¬ 
taires.)  I  fear  to  touch  this  question,  but  nevertheless 
will  attempt  it,  hoping  that  for  the  common  good  I 
may  speak  to  the  rich  in  behalf  of  the  poor,  and  to 
the  poor  in  behalf  of  the  rich;  but  let  us  cease  our  in¬ 
vectives,  provoked  by  theatrical  distributions,  and  lay 
aside  all  fears  that  they  cannot  continue  without  calami- 


*.  Chapter  4.  (Cf.  Isocrates.) 


DEMOSTHENES 


TIIE  STATESMAN. 


129 


tons  results.  We  can  imagine  nothing  more  essential 
to  the  success  of  our  affairs  and  the  firm  establishment 
of  our  whole  social  edifice.”  In  the  continuance  of 
the  theoricon  Demosthenes  saw  a  solution  of  the  social 
question, —  a  necessary  solution,  for  Philip  was  at  the 
gates. 

Demosthenes  was  not  of  those  stiff,  unbending  men 
who  say,  “Let  the  state  perish  rather  than  my  prin¬ 
ciples.”  He  could  make  concessions  to  the  necessities 
of  the  moment;  he  was  an  opportuniste.  The  ancients 
esteemed  the  ready  choice  of  expedients  ( eu/.oupta )  as  a 
kind  of  virtue;  it  is  at  least  the  necessary  quality  of  a 
statesman.  The  Eubœan  Callias  was,  according  to 
BEschines,  more  remarkable  in  all  his  twists  and  turns 
than  the  Euripus,  whose  shores  he  inhabited.  This 
capricious  versatility  is  a  great  fault,  but  it  is  well  to 
know  how  to  adapt  our  course  to  the  obstacles  in  our 
path.  This  characterized  Demosthenes.  Instead  of 
the  inflexible  rigor  of  a  theorist,  of  the  irreconcilable 
doctrinaire ,  he  possessed  a  suppleness  rarely  accorded 
to  vigorous  genius,  and  particularly  remarkable  in  him. 
He  struggled  against  Athens  and  Philip  with  a  tenacity 
of  conviction  and  patriotic  ardor  that  nothing  could 
weary  or  discourage.  But  the  impetuosity  of  his  ob¬ 
stinate  assaults  against  the  public  enemies  was  not 
born  of  blind  temerity.  Ilis  judgment  rather  than  his 
feelings  urged  the  war;  and  he  was  the  first  to  counsel 
peace  when,  in  accordance  with  honor,  the  interests  of 
the  city  demanded  it. 

Philip  was  awarded  the  place  of  Phocis  in  the  Am¬ 
phictyonie  council,  and  even  called  honorable  president 
of  the  Pythian  games.  The  Athenians  were  humili¬ 
ated  by  a  condescension  disgraceful  to  all  Greece,  and 
personally  disturbed  by  the  probable  results  of  the 


130 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


humiliation  of  the  Amphictyons  at  the  feet  of  the  vic¬ 
tor  of  the  Sacred  War;  therefore  they  abstained  from 
sending  deputies  to  the  Pythian  solemnity.  Philip 
pressed  them  to  sanction  the  decree  of  the  Amphic¬ 
tyons  (346).  The  assembly  was  undecided.  Demos¬ 
thenes  did  not  hesitate.  lie  did  not  wish  to  endeavor 
vainly  to  dispute  a  trifling  question  of  prerogative 
(jj/Ç  èv  AeX(p<nq  <r/.tâç)  with  the  Macedonian  at  the  cost  of 
a  crusade  of  the  Greeks  against  his  country. 

“  Athenians,  do  not  give  any  necessity  or  pretext  for  con¬ 
certed  attack  upon  you  to  the  people  who  compose  the  con¬ 
gress,  and  who  once  called  themselves  Amphictyons.  [The 
composition  of  the  Amphictyonie  council  had  been  changed  by 
the  dissension  of  the  Grecian  cities,  and  the  institution  itself 
perverted  by  the  precedence  of  a  barbarian.]  *  *  *  What, 
in  my  opinion,  is  to  be  feared,  and  what  have  we  to  avoid? 
that  the  war,  reserved  for  future  years,  will  not  afford  a 
common  pretext,  a  general  complaint  in  all  Greece  against 
us.  For  if  Argos,  Messina,  Megalopolis,  and  other  states  of 
the  Peloponnesus,  rallied  with  the  politics  of  these  cities, 
threaten  us  in  their  hate,  aroused  by  negotiations  begun  with 
Lacedæmon,  because  we  seem  desirous  of  supplanting  them; 
if  Thebes,  which,  as  you  know,  already  hates  us,  loves  us  less 
because  we  recall  her  exiles,  and  give  her  many  proofs  of  our 
malevolence;  Thessaly,  because  we  care  for  the  safety  of  the 
Pliocidian  outlaws;  Philip,  because  Athens  refuses  him  a 
place  in  the  general  council  of  Greece;  —  I  tremble  lest  all 
these  powers,  animated  by  particular  resentments,  and  au¬ 
thorized  by  Amphictyonie  decrees,  should  concentrate  upon 
us  in  a  federal  war,  and  each  people  *  *  *  rush  to  arms 
against  a  new  Phocis.  *  *  *  To  avoid  the  war,  and  yet  to  do 
nothing  unworthy  of  Athens,  to  show  all  our  prudence  and 
the  equity  of  our  response, —  these  are,  I  think,  our  duties.” 

The  policy  of  Demosthenes  had  always  been  to 
unite  Greece  against  Philip.  Would  it  not  have  been 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  STATESMAN. 


131 


folly  to  have  armed,  by  ill-timed  and  feeble  protesta¬ 
tions,  Greece  and  Philip  against  Athens,  who  violated 
the  sworn  peace?  Philip  could  not  wait  long  for  a 
legitimate  cause  of  disagreement.  Two  years  after¬ 
ward,  as  protector  and  arbiter  of  the  rights  of  the  cities 
near  the  temple  of  Delphi,  he  begun  again  to  plan 
invasions  of  Lacedaemon.  Demosthenes  this  time  said 
no  more  of  peace.  Philip,  in  violating  it,  had  once 
more  justified  the  convictions  of  the  orator.* 

In  human  hands  the  purest  doctrines  can  become 
corrupt.  That  of  opportunists  had  its  dangers;  it 
could  furnish  ready  excuse  for  injustice  and  desertion. 
Grave  and  distinguished  judges  of  every  age,  in  their 
decisions,  have  considered  the  interests  of  Athens, 
*  *  *  and  the  circumstances. f  u  Is  not  justice  false 
to  her  first  duty  when  she  pulls  the  bandage  from  her 
eyes  and  seeks  to  learn  the  aspect  of  the  heavens  and 
the  quarters  of  the  wind  ?  Cicero,  who  prosecuted  the 
extortionate  Yerres,  and  defended  the  oppressive  Fon- 
teius  the  following  year,  the  bitter  enemy  of  Yatinius, 
soon  after  his  friend,  invoked  opportune  maxims  to 
justify  his  changes.”  In  the  name  of  the  public 

*  Religious  legislators  themselves  did  not  disdain  opportunism. 
All  the  gods  of  paganism,  except  perhaps  hospitable  Jupiter,  were 
touched  more  by  an  amphora  of  wine  offered  to  themselves  than  by  a 
cup  of  water  given  to  the  thirsty.  Usually  the  richness  of  the  gifts 
determined  the  measure  of  their  favors:  they  ignored  the  goodness 
of  grace.  This  exactness  was  burdensome  to  the  poor,  or  Attica 
counted  a  great  many  of  them  on  her  meager  soil,  whence  the  reli¬ 
gious  maxim  :  “  A  few  grains  of  incense  honor  the  divinity  more  than 
a  hecatomb.”  This  was  to  give  a  lecture  to  Olympus.  ( Esprit  des  Lois , 
xxiv,  23,  24.) 

f  Pro  Flacco,  39.  Cicero’s  changeableness  did  not  save  him  from 
this  humble  assertion,  “  Scio  me  asinum  germanum  fuisse”  ( Ad 
Atticum ,  iv,  5),  nor  later  from  proscription.  What  would  he  have 
lost  by  taking  a  straight  road  without  beating  about? 


132 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


good  Demades  and  Æschines,  statesmen  of  Athens, 
abused  him  with  their  usual  frankness.  Melanopus,  the 
rival  of  Callistratus  in  the  government,  began  more 
than  one  harangue  in  these  words:  “Citizens,  Callis¬ 
tratus  is  my  enemy,  but  may  he  to-day  be  governed  by 
the  interests  of  the  state  !  ”  His  intermittent  enmity 
was  softened  by  the  silver  of  Callistratus.  Nicodemus 
from  Messina  was  more  frank  when  he  said  :  UI  have 
changed  my  party,  but  not  my  sentiments.  It  is  best 
always  to  submit  to  the  stronger.”  Æschines  thought 
to  injure  Demosthenes  by  affixing  to  him  the  epithet 
“fickle”  {j:aXi[i^oXov)m  Theopompus  took  up  the  word, 
to  the  great  astonishment  of  Plutarch.  In  fact,  this 
calumny  is  surprising  when  aimed  against  a  man  who 
had  lived  and  died,  his  soul  inflamed  by  an  unique 
passion, —  hatred  of  the  Macedonians, —  and  with  a  firm 
resolution, —  the  obligation  of  honor, —  to  fight  them. 
Some  transient  alterations,  far  from  weakening  his 
constancy,  confirmed  it.  It  is  praiseworthy  for  the 
statesman  to  appear  inconsistent  with  himself  when 
such  appearances  establish  his  disinterested  fidelity  to 
his  country’s  good.  But  this  disinterestedness  must 
defy  even  the  insults  of  suspicion. 

Such  was  not  always  the  opportunism  of  the  Ho¬ 
man  patricians.  Porsena,  allied  to  the  Tarquins, 
marched  upon  Home.  Never  did  such  a  “terror” 
seize  upon  the  senate.  The  people  could  receive 
the  kings  into  the  city  and  prefer  peace  to  nominal 
independence,  with  which  the  rule  of  the  usurers, 
their  masters,  deluded  them.  It  was  necessary  to 
deceive  them  for  the  sake  of  public  liberty.  While 
the  crisis  endured  the  senate  lavished  favors  upon 
them,  and  the  means  of  sustaining  them  were  of  prime 
importance.  Wheat  was  brought  even  from  Cannæ. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


133 


The  monopoly  of  salt,  sold  at  exorbitant  rates,  was 
taken  from  a  few  private  individuals  and  reserved  for 
the  state.  Poor  people  were  exempt  from  all  imposts. 
“The  poor  paid  tribute  enough  in  raising  their  chil¬ 
dren.”  This  benevolence  of  the  senate  bore  its  fruits. 
The  plebeian  justified  Aristotle’s  observation:  “The 
people  fight  well  when  they  are  fed.”  The  horrors 
of  siege  and  famine  did  not  disturb  for  one  moment 
the  pleasant  relations  existing  between  the  high  and 
the  low  of  the  city;  and  Porsena,  powerless  against 
this  union,  was  forced  to  retire  with  his  royal  clients. 
Bossuet*  has  praised  “the  wise  senators”  for  their 
just  condescension.  He  neglected  to  add  that,  the 
peril  passed,  they  avenged  themselves  for  their  fright 
and  forced  humility  before  the  exigences  of  aristo¬ 
cratic  interests.  The  nobles  had  all  to  lose  in  the 
reestablishment  of  the  Tarquins;  the  plebeians  could 
expect  nothing  but  a  change  of  yoke,  and  the  second 
yoke  would  not  be  the  heavier.  Upon  the  death 
of  Tarquin  the  senate  again  showed  its  true  nature. 
“The  joy  of  the  patricians  knew  no  bounds,  and  the 
people,  until  then  cared  for  and  tickled  with  constant 
attentions,  lived  from  that  moment  exposed  to  the 
oppression  of  the  great.  ”  j*  The  senate  had  consented 
to  be  just  in  an  “extreme  necessity,”  as  in  other  cir¬ 
cumstances  it  surpassed  the  liberality  of  the  most  lib¬ 
eral, —  a  slyness  not  peculiar  to  Roman  policy,  if  we 
can  judge  from  an  allusion  of  Camille  Desmoulins: 
The  Jacobin,  C.  Gracchus,  proposed  the  division  of  two 
or  three  conquered  cities;  the  ci-devant  (aristocrat) 
Drusus  proposed  to  divide  a  dozen  of  them.  Gracchus 

*  Discours  sur  l’h istoire  universelle.  ( Empires ,  iii,  G.) 

f  u  Nam  cupide  conculcatur  nimis  ante  metutum.”  (Lucretius,  v)  ; 
Livy,  ii,  9,  21  :  “  Passato  ’1  pericolo,  gabbato  ’1  santo.” 


134 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


fixed  tlie  price  of  bread  at  sixteen  cents,  Drusus  the 
maximum  at  eight.  This  proceeding  was  so  success¬ 
ful  that  the  people  grew  cold  toward  their  genuine 
defender,  who,  once  made  unpopular,  “was  killed  by 
the  aristocrat  Scipio  Hasica,  by  a  blow  with  a  chair,” 
at  the  first  insurrection.*  Such  opportunism  is  nothing 
but  weakness  and  falsehood. 

III.  Demosthenes  would  have  been  badly  inspired 
to  incite  the  Athenians  to  an  untimely  war  as  long 
as  his  efforts  to  convince  them  of  its  inevitable  neces¬ 
sity  were  so  easily  paralyzed.  The  orator-minister  at 
Athens  had  not  at  his  disposal  the  resources  of  the 
chiefs  of  the  Roman  republic,  nor  those  of  the  min¬ 
isters  of  modern  states.  Cicero,  the  consul,  was  in¬ 
vested  with  the  most  extended  power  the  law  could 
confer  next  to  the  dictatorship.  The  head  of  the 
senate,  arbiter,  and  governor  of  popular  assemblies, 
he  commanded  the  public  forces  and  raised  legions 
at  his  will.  In  a  republic  he  was  king  of  the  city. 
Athens  had  nothing  similar.  There  the  real  power 
fell  to  the  orator,  the  leader  and  ruler  of  the  multi¬ 
tude;  but  this  power,  dependent  upon  the  personal  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  citizen,  and  neither  bestowed  nor  sus¬ 
tained  by  law,  must  be  defended  every  day  by  the 
statesman  whose  work  it  is,  and  through  whom  alone 
it  exists.  TIis  political  enemies  have  the  same  rights 
and  facilities  to  overthrow  as  he  to  maintain  it.  Ho 
legal  term  limits  or  prolongs  it.  Pericles  governed 
Athens  forty  years;  another  politician  might  rule  it 
a  year,  a  day.  For  sixteen  years  (354-338)  Demos- 

*  Livy,  ix,  70:  Le  vieux  Cordelier,  No.  2.  C.  Desmoulins  attrib¬ 
utes  by  a  mistake  the  death  of  Tiberius  Gracchus  to  his  brother 
Caius,  the  colleague  of  Drusus,  and  who,  with  others,  perished  also 
by  a  violent  death. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


135 


thenes  struggled  for  tlie  welfare  of  Athens  with  no 
other  aid  than  his  own  patriotism  and  genius.  Dur¬ 
ing  this  long  ministry,  when  the  opposition  was  repre¬ 
sented  by  almost  the  entire  city,  what  allies  had  he 
against  the  powerful  seductions  which  Philip  and  his 
associates  used  with  the  Athenians  for  his  destruction? 
How  could  he  more  effectually  oppose  them  than  by 
his  personal  efforts?  Eloquence  is  also  in  our  own 
days  a  force  in  government,  but  do  the  logical  orations 
of  the  tribune  alone  obtain  a  favorable  vote  of  the 
cabinet?  Athens  had  no  favors  to  offer,  no  titles  of 
honor  to  bestow.  The  adversaries  of  Demosthenes 
tempted  the  j^eople  with  the  delights  of  peace;  De¬ 
mosthenes  placed  war  before  their  eyes.  They  flat¬ 
tered  the  vices  of  the  people;  Demosthenes  laid  them 
bare  and  cured  them  with  rough  treatment.  His  oj3- 
ponents  are  the  pensioners  of  Philip,  the  indifferent, 
the  bad  citizens,  and  even  some  honorable 
Philip  counted,  perhaps,  among  his  adversaries  more 
than  one  Timarchus;  but  he  numbered  also  Phocion 
among  his  auxiliaries,  voluntary  or  not.  This  pacifi¬ 
catory  general  was  the  only  gratuitous  ally  of  the  Mace¬ 
donian,  but  not  the  least  precious.  In  fact,  was  it 
helping  the  Athenians  to  success  in  battle  to  declare 
it  impossible  ?  The  axe  of  Demosthenes’  orations  also 
cut  the  nerve  of  resistance  in  the  undecided.  The  at¬ 
titude  of  Phocion  encouraged  distrust  and  disturbed 
sincere  patriotism.  Were  the  hostilities  which  Pho¬ 
cion  condemned  truly  legitimate  and  wise  ?  If  he 
deceived  himself,  there  was  no  disgrace  nor  risk  in 
deceiving  one’s  self  with  him,  but  only  self-aggran¬ 
dizement.  The  efforts  of  Demosthenes  to  awaken  the 
national  patriotism  were  frustrated  by  one  of  the  most 
prominent  citizens,  impelled  not  by  conviction,  but  by 


136 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

command.  If  the  principal  general  of  the  republic, 
elected  forty-five  times,  embarrassed  the  policy  of  De¬ 
mosthenes  and  increased  for  a  time  the  difficulty  of 
affairs,  what  can  be  said  of  incapable  or  treacherous 
generals  ?  of  Chares,  of  Charidemus  ?  Demosthenes 
was  the  instigator  of  the  war.  All  responsibility  was 
thrown  upon  him.  To  him  were  charged  difficulties, 
excesses,  reverses,  from  within  and  without.  A  thou¬ 
sand  obstacles  arose  before  him  and  made  his  path 
uneven. 

One  of  the  most  frequent  causes  of  disorder  in  the 
city  was  the  assessment  of  the  taxes,  a  cause  especially 
pernicious,  since  the  financial  organization  was  the 
basis  of  the  military  administration.  The  liturgies, 
or  public  services,  were  demanded  according  to  the 
weal tli  of  the  citizens;  but  how  estimate  exactly  the 
resources  ?  and  how  many  ways  for  the  selfish  to 
escape  their  obligations!  The  law  of  exchange,  and 
above  all  the  employment  of  the  public  treasure, 
provoked  grave  troubles.*  Upon  questions  concern¬ 
ing  taxes,  the  rich  and  poor  disagreed.  The  neces¬ 
sity  imposed  upon  rich  Athenians  to  substitute  them¬ 
selves  for  the  treasury,  to  supply  civil  or  military 
demands,  irritated  them.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
poor  claimed  maintenance  by  forced  contributions 
from  the  rich,  thus  diminishing  so  much  of  the  state 
tax,  a  part  of  which  alleviated  their  poverty  or  fur¬ 
nished  their  pleasures:  indigent  or  opulent  continu¬ 
ally  wrangled  over  the  public  revenues.  Demosthenes, 
in  the  midst  of  a  conflict  difficult  to  subdue,  had 
much  to  do:  how  many  abuses  to  reform  in  the  old 

*  Demosthenes  had  already  tried  to  remedy  it  in  the  oration  On  the 
Navy  Boards  by  the  àvrîduffcç. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  STATESMAN. 


137 


laws  or  in  their  application!  The  rich  could  formerly 
associate  themselves  in  parties  of  sixteen  for  payment 
of  taxes;  each  one  thus  paying  only  a  small  sum, 
provided  only  that  the  sixteenth  had  enough  money 
to  equip  one  ship.  But  little  as  this  tax-payer  and 
associate  outfitter  was  burdened,  he  sought 

to  evade  the  tax  by  taking  refuge  in  the  temple  of 
Diana.  The  trierarchs  that  were  less  agile  to  flee 
to  the  feet  of  the  shrines  were  thrown  into  prison. 
But,  by  waiting,  the  galley  was  not  armed.  In  the 
meantime,  less  wealthy  citizens,  crushed  by  these  same 
obligations,  having  lost  through  them  their  limited 
resources,  were  sometimes  even  unable  to  satisfy  the 
law.  Ships  already  on  the  sea  were  abandoned,  others 
remained  in  port  awaiting  equipment.  Demosthenes 
prevailed  on  them  to  adopt  a  system  of  proportional 
taxation,  whereby  each  rich  man  was  .  compelled  to 
furnish,  without  associates,  at  least  three  vessels  and 
a  longboat.  Those  citizens  whose  property  amounted 
to  less  than  ten  talents  (about  $11,000),  preserved 
the  right  of  associating  until  their  accumulated  for¬ 
tunes  reached  this  sum.  Owing  to  this  reform  the 
Athenian  navy  ceased  to  deteriorate,  and  the  equip¬ 
ments  were  at  last  completed  in  time.  Demosthenes 
had  gained  the  cause  of  his  country,  in  despite  of  all 
resistance  of  privileged  orders.  “The  sum  which  they 
offered  me  for  not  proposing  my  law,  or  at  least  for 
delaying  it,  I  dare  not  tell.”  After  bribery  the  vessel- 
owners  tried  menaces.  Demosthenes  was  prosecuted 
as  an  infringer  of  the  laws,  but  his  accuser  did  not 
obtain  a  fifth  part  of  the  votes.  Notwithstanding 
selfish  interests,  the  courageous  minister  of  Athens 
succeeded  in  relieving  the  poor  and  in  recalling  the 
rich  to  their  duty,  and  “since  then  all  things  occurred 
G* 


138 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


peacefully,”*  but  it  was  late  (in  340),  only  two  years 
before  Chæronea. 

Demosthenes  had  succeeded  in  reforming  the  trier- 
archy  ;  he  could  not  destroy,  nor  even  weaken,  the  abuses 
of  the  theoricon.  He  would  have  wished  that  the  allow¬ 
ances  from  the  treasury  were  not  an  encouragement 
to  indolence,  but  a  remuneration  for  public  service. 
“If  you  should  to-day  wish  to  throw  off  these  habits, 
and  to  use  the  resources  offered  by  your  internal 
riches  to  reconquer  your  external  possessions,  you 
would  be  delivered  from  these  alms,  which  resemble 
aliments,  given  to  the  sick  by  physicians:  they  do 
not  restore  them  to  health,  but  only  prevent  them 
from  dying.  Even  so,  the  pleasures  which  you  cher¬ 
ish  to-day  are  not  sufficient  for  all  your  needs,  nor 
by  insignificance  do  they  lead  you  to  disdain  them 
and  to  return  to  useful  labors;  they  are  nourishment 
to  your  indolence.  Do  you  wish,  some  ask,  to  trans¬ 
form  them  into  pay  ?  f  I  wish  immediately  a  rule 
applying  to  all,  that  every  citizen  receiving  his  share 
of  the  public  revenues,  may  be  ready  to  relieve  the 
different  needs  of  the  State.  Does  peace  authorize 
repose  ?  In  your  houses  you  rejoice  in  a  better  con¬ 
dition,  sheltered  from  the  unworthy  actions  which 
indigence  imposes.  Does  an  alarm  come  unexpectedly, 
?  The  donation  makes  you  a  soldier  and 
justly  compels  you  to  protect  your  country.  Has 
one  of  you  passed  the  age  of  service  ?  let  him  receive 

*  Pro  Corona,  passim.  The  civil  pleadings  of  Demosthenes,  relat¬ 
ing  to  maritime  duties  or  to  affairs  of  maritime  commerce,  give  inter¬ 
esting  details  about  the  abuse  of  the  trierarchy.  See  especially  the 
Pleadings  for  Apollodorus  and  On  the  Naval  Crown. 

f  The  Roman  Senate  had  to  give  pay  to  the  army  before  Veii, 
which  bound  it  to  an  annual  service  :  “Annua  sera  liabes,  annuam 
operam  ede.”  (Livy  v,  3.1 


as  to-day 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  STATESMAN. 


139 


what  he  has  already  received,  undeservedly  and  un¬ 
duly,  in  the  name  of  the  common  law,  for  the  inspec¬ 
tion  and  administration  of  the  aifairs  of  the  common¬ 
wealth.  In  a  word,  neither  adding  nor  subtracting 
anything,  I  suppress  all  confusion,  and  establish 
order  in  the  State  by  submitting  to  a  common  rule 
all  tax-payers,  soldiers,  judges  and  citizens,  employed 
according  to  their  age  and  circumstances,  I  do  not 
say:  ‘It  is  necessary  to  distribute  to  the  idle  the 
wages  of  the  worker;  to  keep  yourselves  unoccupied 
in  the  midst  of  pleasures  and  uncertainty  with  no  other 
aim  than  to  hear  the  news:  The  mercenaries  of  such 
a  one  have  conquered For  such  is  now  your  life.  I 
do  not  censure  those  who,  in  your  stead,  perform  a 
part  of  your  duties;  but  I  demand  that  you  yourselves 
should  do  for  yourselves  that  for  which  you  hire 
others,  and  not  leave  the  post  of  honor  won  by  your 
ancestors  at  the  price  of  so  many  glorious  perils.”  * 
The  establishment  of  an  unparalleled  remuneration, 
not  under  color  of  help,  but  of  legitimate  indemnity, 
rendered  possible  the  organization  of  a  standing  army. 
Philip  had  such  an  army;  Athens  opposed  him  with 
troops  levied  in  haste,  and  usually  at  the  last  minute. 
The  occasion  having  passed,  the  fortifications  were 
abandoned.  Upon  a  new  alarm,  new  preparations  and 
new  tumults  occurred;  nothing  was  determined,  noth¬ 
ing  established.  With  such  a  system  Athens  could  do 
nothing  opportunely.  She  must  have  an  organized 
army  in  readiness,  and  thoroughly  disciplined.  u  To 
day  you  ask,  What  are  the  intentions  of  Philip  ?  Upon 
what  point  is  he  now  marching?  Perhaps,  then,  Athe¬ 
nians,  you  will  trouble  yourselves  to  ask,  Where  is  the 
Athenian  army?  Where  will  it  show  itself?”  But  is 


*  Third  Olynthiac. 


140 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GEEECE. 


tliat  an  Athenian  army  which  is  composed  only  of  mer¬ 
cenaries  ?  Demosthenes  wishes  that  Athenians  be  en¬ 
rolled  in  it,  if  only  to  watch  over  the  mercenaries.  He 
remembers  that,  by  this  mixture  of  the  national  element 
with  foreign  forces,  Athens  once  conquered  Lacedæmon. 

“  But  ever  since  our  armies  have  been  formed  of  foreigners 
alone,  their  victories  have  been  over  our  allies  and  confeder¬ 
ates;  while  our  enemies  have  arisen  to  an  extravagance  of 
power.  And  these  armies,  with  scarcely  the  slightest  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  service  of  the  state,  sail  off  to  fight  for  Artabazus, 
or  some  other  person;  and  their  general  follows  them.  Nor 
should  we  wonder  at  it,  for  he  cannot  command  who  cannot 
pay  his  soldiers.  What,  then,  do  I  recommend?  That  you 
should  take  away  all  pretenses,  both  from  generals  and  from 
soldiers,  by  a  regular  payment  of  the  army,  and  by  incorpo¬ 
rating  domestic  forces  with  the  auxiliaries,  to  be,  as  it  were, 
inspectors  of  the  conduct  of  the  commanders.  For  at  pres¬ 
ent  our  manner  of  acting  is  indeed  ridiculous.  If  a  man 
should  ask,  ‘Are  you  at  peace,  Athenians?1  the  answer 
would  immediately  be,  ‘By  no  means;  we  are  at  war  with 
Philip.  Have  we  not  chosen  the  usual  generals  and  officers, 
both  of  horse  and  foot?1  And  of  what  use  are  all  these,  ex¬ 
cept  the  single  person  whom  you  send  to  the  field?  The  rest 
attend  your  priests  in  their  processions.  So  that,  as  if  you 
formed  so  many  men  of  clay,  you  make  your  officers  for  show, 
and  not  for  service.  My  countrymen!  should  not  all  these 
generals  have  been  chosen  from  your  own  body;  all  these  sev¬ 
eral  officers  from  your  own  body,  that  our  force  might  be  really 
Athenian?  And  yet,  for  an  expedition  in  favor  of  Lemnos, 
the  general  must  be  a  citizen,  while  troops  engaged  in  de¬ 
fense  of  our  own  territories  are  commanded  by  Menelaus.  I 
say  not  this  to  detract  from  his  merit;  but  to  whomsoever 
this  command  had  been  intrusted,  surely  he  should  have  de¬ 
rived  it  from  your  voices.”* 

*  First  Philippic.  Let  us  note  the  considerations  of  the  orator  in 
regard  to  mercenaries:  Athens  is  at  their  discretion. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  STATESMAN. 


141 


The  complaints  of  the  orator  were  hut  too  well  justi¬ 
fied.  Chares  had  abandoned  the  social  war,  to  aid 
Artabazus  in  a  revolt  against  the  Persian  king.  Ipliic- 
rates,  having  become  the  son-in-law  of  the  Thracian 
Cotys,  had  aided  him  in  his  hostile  expeditions  against 
Athens.  This  same  Ipliicrates  came  to  receive  hostages 
of  Amphipolis;  the  city  was  about  to  surrender.  A 
mercenary  succeeded  him,  restored  the  hostages,  passed 
into  the  service  of  the  Thracian  king,  and  Amphipolis 
was  lost. 

What  shall  I  say  of  the  habits  acquired  by  the  leaders 
of  the  mercenaries  in  the  heart  of  Asiatic  opulence  and 
license  ?  Chares  had  robbed  the  treasury,  he  bribed 
the  orators,  and  the  people  acquitted  him.  Ipliicrates 
was  accused  of  treason,  and  saved  his  life  by  showing 
his  sword  and  the  poignards  of  his  partisans  who  were 
scattered  through  the  assembly.  When  military  ser¬ 
vice  became  a  trade,  the  soldier  lost  his  ardor  against 

\ 

the  stranger,  and  the  leaders  of  an  army  not  really  na¬ 
tional  soon  ceased  to  be  citizens.  The  suppression,  or 
at  least  the  transformation  of  the  theoricon ,  would  have 
weakened  the  evils  connected  with  the  use  of  mercenary 
troops.  Neither  the  zeal  of  Demosthenes  for  the  pub¬ 
lic  welfare,  nor  his  eloquence,  could  arouse  the  people, 
forgetful,  as  they  were,  of  the  virtues  which  are  the 
means  and  safeguard  of  liberty. 

All  forms  of  government  conceal  the  germs  of  evils 
that  may  ruin  them.  The  wisest  have  their  peculiar 
infirmities  and  dangers.  The  aim  of  the  legislator 
should  be  to  weaken  these  as  much  as  possible,  and 
first,  to  seek  a  constitution  containing  the  fewest  sources 
of  abuse.  Aristotle,  without  pronouncing  himself  ab¬ 
solutely  in  favor  of  a  democratic  government,  has 
marked  its  nature  and  advantages  with  a  precision  that 


142 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


equals  an  eulogy.  “  The  democratic  form,”  lie  says, 
“is  the  most  lasting  of  all,  since  in  it  the  majority 
rules,  and  the  equality  enjoyed  makes  it  the  most  cher¬ 
ished  of  all  constitutions.  *  *  *  Imagine  a  state  of 
thirteen  hundred  citizens,  a  thousand  of  whom  are 
wealthy  ;  now  deprive  of  all  political  power  the  remain¬ 
ing  three  hundred,  as  free,  however,  as  the  others,  and 
their  equals  in  all  respects  except  that  of  wealth.  Could 
that  be  called  a  democratic  government  ?  *  *  *  There 
is  no  democracy,  save  where  the  free  and  poor  make 
the  majority  and  the  ruling  power.”  Aristotle  advo¬ 
cated  equity  and  clemency  to  the  poor.  “But,”  said  he, 
“this  double  end  is  not  usually  obtained.  It  does  not 
always  happen  that  the  heads  of  the  government  are 
the  most  pleasant  men.*  However,  it  is  the  interest 
of  the  state  to  treat  the  lower  classes  gently.  “At 
Carthage  the  government  always  knew  how  to  gain  the 
affection  of  the  people  by  sending  them,  one  after  an¬ 
other,  into  the  colonies  to  enrich  themselves.  The 
higher  classes,  if  they  are  intelligent,  will  endeavor  to 
aid  the  poor  and  to  furnish  them  labor.  *  *  *  Almost 
all  legislators  who  have  wished  to  found  an  aristocracy, 
have  committed  two  errors  almost  identical.  First,  in 
bestowing  too  much  upon  the  rich;  and  second,  in  tak¬ 
ing  too  much  away  from  the  poor.  In  the  course  of  time 
a  false  good  necessarily  gives  rise  to  an  undoubted  evil. 
The  ambition  of  the  upper  classes  has  ruined  more 
governments  than  that  of  the  lower  classes.”  Philoso¬ 
phers  and  legislators  consider  the  organization  of  capi¬ 
tal  as  the  greatest  difficulty, —  in  their  eyes  “  a  pecu¬ 
liar  source  of  revolution.”  Plato  in  his  Republic  solved 
the  problem  by  suppressing  property;  f  what  is  called 


*  Politics,  vi,  10,  3;  vii,  1  ;  viii,  6. 

t  “  La  propriété,  c’est  le  vol,”  a  paradox  ingeniously  refuted  by 
Laya  in  liis  courageous  comedy,  L'ami  des  lois  (2  January,  1793). 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


143 


striking  at  the  root  of  the  evil.  Chalceclonian  Phaleas 
tried  to  equalize  property  by  advising  the  rich  to 
give  and  never  receive  doweries;  the  poor,  to  receive 
and  never  to  give.  The  author  of  Politics  put  little 
value  upon  these  expedients  designed  to  maintain 
among  fortunes  a  kind  of  chimerical  level,  a  necessarily 
unstable  equilibrium.  u  The  necessity  is  to  level  pas¬ 
sions  rather  than  property,  and  that  equality  is  the  re¬ 
sult  only  of  education  regulated  by  good  laws.”  Pha¬ 
leas  expected  to  suppress  thieves  and  highwaymen  by 
a  decree;  he  was  deceived.  It  is  abundance,  and  not 
indigence,  that  commits  great  crimes.  u  Ho  one  usurps 
tyranny  to  be  sheltered  from  the  inclemency  of  the  sea¬ 
sons.”  Covetousness  must  be  mastered.  Demagogues 
(and  here  is  the  stumbling-block  of  a  popular  govern¬ 
ment)  flatter  the  people  through  personal  ambition,  to 
the  detriment  of  the  public  welfare.  When  the  higher 
classes  become  indignant,  because  all  the  public  ex¬ 
penses  are  imposed  upon  them,  they  revolt  against  the 
injustice,  and  sometimes  liberty  perishes.*  Therefore 
a  wise  policy  will  guard  against  extremes.  Only  a  dis¬ 
honest  citizen  can  advocate  equality  of  property,  the 
worst  of  scourges.  In  the  words  of  the  author  of  Dc 
Officiis,-\  it  is  sufficient  to  equalize  the  inequalities  by 
imposing  taxes  especially  upon  the  rich,  and  by  reliev¬ 
ing  the  multitude.  ^ 

These  wise  principles,  borrowed  by  Montesquieu 
from  the  man  of  Stagira,  were  those  of  Demosthenes. 
Perhaps  he  has  even,  in  this  point  of  view,  extended 
the  obligations  of  the  city  to  the  utmost  limits  in  the 
eyes  of  modern  times.  “We  ought  to  pay  willingly 

*  Politics ,  viii,  4;  ii,  4;  vi,  10;  vii,  4. 

t  “Æquatio  bonorum,  qua  peste  quæ  potest  esse  major?”  ii,  21. 

X  Esprit  des  Lois ,  v,  5. 


144 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


to  our  parents  tlie  debt  justly  imposed  by  nature  and 
by  law;  but  what  eacli  one  owes  liis  father  the  repub¬ 
lic  owes  to  each  of  its  citizens,  common  fathers  of  the 
state.  Thus,  far  from  diminishing  that  which  the 
state  gives  them,  it  should  be  required,  this  resource 
failing,  to  find  others,  that  they  might  not  be  obliged 
to  expose  their  poverty  to  all  eyes.”  Thus  not  only 
individual  labor,  but  also  the  state,  should  assist  in 
diminishing  poverty.  u  If  the  rich  proceed  upon  these 
principles  they  will  act  agreeably,  not  to  justice  only, 
but  to  good  policy;  for  to  rob  some  men  of  their  neces¬ 
sary  subsistence  is  to  raise  a  number  of  enemies  to  the 
commonwealth.  To  men  of  lower  fortunes  I  give  this 
advice,  that  they  should  remove'  those  grievances  of 
which  the  wealthier  members  complain  so  loudly  and 
so  justly  (for  I  now  proceed  in  the  manner  I  proposed, 
and  shall  not  scruple  to  offer  such  truths  as  may  be 
favorable  to  the  rich).  *  *  *  The  rich  should  have 
their  lives  and  fortunes  well  secured,  so  that  when 
any  danger  threatens  their  country  their  opulence  may 
be  applied  to  its  defense.  Other  citizens  should  regard 
the  public  treasure  as  it  really  is, —  the  property  of 
all, —  and  be  content  with  just  their  portion;  but  should 
esteem  all  private  fortunes  as  the  inviolable  right  of 
their  possessors.  Thus  a  small  state  rises  to  great¬ 
ness;  a  great  one  preserves  its  power.”*  Demos¬ 
thenes  often  implored  respect  for  democratic  equality. 
“There  is  no  more  fatal  error  than  the  aggrandize¬ 
ment  of  one  citizen  beyond  the  multitude.”  This 
multitude  (of  ttoLW),  the  lower  classes,  are  the  objects 
of  the  greatest  solicitude  on  the  part  of  the  Athenian 
politician.  He  recalls  their  duties  to  them,  but  he 
supports  the  right  of  indulgence  by  the  rich  for  the 

*  Fourth  Philippic ,  §  40. 


DEMOSTHENES  —  THE  STATESMAN. 


145 


benefit  of  the  State.  In  this  manner  Demosthenes 

hoped  to  revive  the  internal,  and  thus  the  external, 

power  of  Athens.  He  has  described  and  summed  up 

his  whole  policy:  u  Such  was  the  general  tenor  of  my 

administration  in  the  affairs  of  this  citv  and  in  the 

«/ 

national  concerns  of  Greece.  Here  I  was  never  known 
to  prefer  the  favor  of  the  great  to  the  rights  of  the 
people;  and  in  the  affairs  of  Greece,  the  bribes,  the 
flattering  assurances  of  friendship  which  Philip  lav¬ 
ished,  never  were  so  dear  to  me  as  the  interests  of 
the  nation.”* 

IY.  From  the  beginning  Demosthenes’  discernment 
penetrated  the  most  obscure  plans  of  the  enemy.  UI 
see  the  encroachments  of  Philip  cause  you  more  alarm 
in  the  future  than  to-day.  Yes,  the  progress  of  evil 
forces  itself  upon  my  sight  (344).  May  my  conjec¬ 
tures  be  false  !  but  I  tremble  lest  we  have  already 
touched  the  fatal  goal.”  Athens,  on  the  contrary,  so 
ready  to  suspect  her  eminent  citizens,  became  confident 
and  credulous  as  soon  as  her  courtiers  set  forth  the 
royal  good  faith  of  the  Macedonian.  She  scoffed  at 
the  revelations  of  her  wary  orator,  and  looked  with 
complacency  upon  the  future.  Moreover,  should  all 
oligarchies  be  considered  by  a  democratic  government 
as  her  natural  and  implacable  f  enemies,  how  much 
more  reason  had  Athens  to  guard  against  a  king  ! 

“  Various  are  the  contrivances  for  the  defense  and  security 
of  cities,  as  battlements,  and  walls,  and  trenches,  and  other 
kinds  of  fortifications,  all  which  are  the  effects  of  labor,  and 
attended  with  continual  expense.  [What  would  Demos- 

*  On  the  Crown ,  §  109. 

t  In  some  states  the  oligarchs  took  the  oath  :  “  I  shall  be  the  con¬ 
stant  enemy  of  the  people;  I  will  do  them  all  the  harm  I  can.” 
Aristotle,  Politics ,  viii,  7. 

7 


146 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


tlienes  have  said  of  our  war  budgets?]  But  there  is  one 
common  bulwark  with  which  men  of  prudence  are  naturally 
provided,  the  guard  and  security  of  all  people,  particularly 
of  free  states,  against  the  assault  of  tyrants.  What  is  this? 
Distrust  !  Of  this  be  mindful,  to  this  adhere.  Preserve  this 
carefully,  and  no  calamity  can  affect  you.  ‘  What  is  it  you 
seek?1  said  I.  ‘Liberty?1  And  do  ye  not  perceive  that 
nothing  can  be  more  adverse  to  this  than  the  very  titles  of 
Philip?  Every  monarch,  every  tyrant,  is  an  enemy  to  lib¬ 
erty  and  the  opposer  of  laws.11  * 

This  distrust  is  especially  demanded  of  Athens,  for 
it  is  she  that  Philip  hates  and  doubts  above  all. 

“First,  then,  Athenians,  be  firmly  persuaded  of  this:  that 
Philip  is  committing  hostilities  against  us,  and  has  really 
violated  the  peace;  that  he  has  the  most  implacable  enmity 
to  this  whole  city,  to  the  ground  on  which  this  city  stands, 
to  the  very  gods  of  this  city  (may  their  vengeance  fall  upon 
him!);  but  against  our  constitution  is  his  force  principally 
directed.  The  destruction  of  this  is,  of  all  other  things,  the 
most  immediate  object  of  his  secret  schemes  and  machina¬ 
tions,  and  there  is,  in  some  sort,  a  necessity  that  it  should 
be  so.  Consider.  He  aims  at  universal  power,  and  you  he 
regards  as  the  only  persons  to  dispute  his  pretensions.  He 
hath  long  injured  you,  and  of  this  he  himself  is  fully  con¬ 
scious;  for  the  surest  barriers  of  his  other  dominions  are 
those  places  which  he  hath  taken  from  us,  so  that,  if  he 
should  give  up  Amphipolis  and  Potidæa,  he  would  not  think 
himself  secure  in  Maceclon.  He  is,  then,  sensible,  both  that 
he  entertains  designs  against  you  and  that  you  perceive  them; 
and  as  he  thinks  highly  of  your  wisdom,  he  judges  that  you 
hold  him  in  the  abhorrence  he  deserves.  To  these  things 
(and  these  of  such  importance)  add:  that  he  is  perfectly  con¬ 
vinced  that,  although  he  were  master  of  all  other  places,  yet 
it  is  impossible  for  him  to  be  secure  while  your  popular  gov- 


*  Second  Philippic,  §  23. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


147 


eminent  subsists;  but  that  if  any  accident  should  happen  to 
him  (and  every  man  is  subject  to  many),  all  those  who  now 
submit  to  force  would  seize  the  opportunity  and  fly  to  you 
for  protection;  and  therefore  it  is  with  regret  he  sees,  in 
that  freedom  you  enjoy,  a  spy  upon  the  incidents  of  his  for¬ 
tune.  Nor  is  this,  his  reasoning,  weak  or  trivial.  First, 
then,  he  is  on  this  account  to  be  regarded  as  the  implacable 
enemy  of  our  free  and  popular  constitution.  In  the  next 
place,  we  should  be  fully  persuaded  that  all  those  things 
which  now  employ  him,  all  that  he  is  now  projecting,  he  is 
projecting  against  this  city.”* 

The  Athenians  were  incapable  of  submitting  volun¬ 
tarily  to  the  yoke,  or  of  deserting  the  cause  of  Hel¬ 
lenic  liberty. 

“  As  ambition  is  his  great  passion,  universal  empire  the 
sole  object  of  his  views;  not  peace,  not  tranquillity,  not  any 
just  purpose.  He  knows  this  well,  that  neither  our  consti¬ 
tution  nor  our  principles  would  admit  him  to  prevail  upon 
you  (by  anything  he  could  promise,  by  anything  he  could 
do)  to  sacrifice  one  state  of  Greece  to  your  private  interest; 
but  that,  as  you  have  the  due  regard  to  justice,  as  you  have 
an  abhorrence  of  the  least  stain  upon  }Tour  honor,  and  as  you 
have  that  quick  discernment  which  nothing  can  escape,  the 
moment  his  attempt  was  made  you  would  oppose  him  with 
the  same  vigor  as  if  you  yourselves  had  been  immediately 
attacked.”  t 

“Thebans,  Thessalians,  Argives,  and  Messenians, 
are  treated  as  his  friends.  He  knows  that  at  his  first 
sign  they  wrould  swell  his  army.  You  he  abuses. 
And  this  reflects  the  greatest  lustre  upon  you,  my 
countrymen,  for  by  these  proceedings  you  are  de¬ 
clared  the  only  invariable  asserters  of  the  rights  of 
Greece, —  the  only  persons  whom  no  private  attacli- 

*  Fourth  Philippic ,  §  11.  f  Second  Philippic,  §  7. 


148 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


ment,  no  views  of  interest,  can  seduce  from  tlieir  af¬ 
fection  to  the  Greeks.”  These  considerations  do  honor 
to  the  magnanimity  of  Athens  and  the  sagacity  of  her 
statesman. 

Every  step  the  Macedonian  advanced  strengthened 
Demosthenes’  zeal  in  shaking  the  torpor  of  the  Athe¬ 
nians.  “It  seems  to  me,  Athenians,  that  some  divinity 
who,  from  a  regard  to  Athens,  looks  down  upon  our 
conduct  with  indignation,  hath  inspired  Philip  with 
this  restless  ambition.  For  were  he  to  sit  down  in 
the  quiet  enjoyment  of  his  conquests  and  acquisitions, 
without  proceeding  to  any  new  attempts,  there  are 
men  among  you  who,  I  think,  would  be  unmoved  at 
those  transactions  which  have  branded  our  state  with 
the  odious  marks  of  infamy,  cowardice,  and  all  that 
is  base.  But  as  he  still  pursues  his  conquests,  as  he 
is  still  extending  his  ambitious  views,  possibly  he 
may  at  last  call  you  forth,  unless  you  have  renounced 
the  name  of  Athenians!”*  Philip’s  avidity  seemed 
to  be  the  spur  with  which  the  gods  urged  Athens; 
but  the  true  spur  was  Demosthenes;  incessantly  he 
goaded  her,  benumbed  by  a  lethargy  from  which  she 
awoke  but  to  die. 

A  statesman  so  vigilant  and  strong  in  the  grandeur 
of  his  soul  and  genius,  was  Philip’s  most  formidable 
enemy.  Philip  felt  it  and  did  him  justice.  After  his 
second  Philippic  (344),  the  king  of  Macedonia,  im¬ 
pressed  with  the  exactness  of  his  views,  said:  “I 
would  have  given  my  voice  to  Demosthenes  to  declare 
war  for  me,  and  I  would  have  appointed  him  gen¬ 
eral.  *  *  *  I  would  willingly  exchange  Ampliipolis 
for  the  genius  of  Demosthenes.”  Lucian  faithfully 


First  Philippic ,  §  42. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


149 


interprets  the  prince’s  sentiments  when  he  ascribes 
to  him  these  words: 

“In  spite  of  themselves  Demosthenes  arouses  his  fellow- 
countrymen,  lulled  to  sleep  as  by  mandrake,  from  their  weary 
stupor.  Taking  little  pains  to  be  agreeable  to  them,  his 
candor  is  the  iron  that  strikes  and  burns  their  indo¬ 
lence.  *  *  *  If  that  single  Demosthenes  were  only  away 
from  Athens,  I  would  subjugate  the  city  more  easily  than 
I  did  Thebes  and  Thessaly.  *  *  *  He  alone  watches  for 
his  country,  discovers  all  occasions,  follows  our  proceedings 
and  confronts  our  armies.  Nothing  escapes  him, —  neither 
my  stratagems,  enterprises,  nor  designs.  *  *  *  In  a  word, 
this  man  is  an  obstacle,  a  rampart,  that  hinders  me  from 
taking  away  everything  in  the  course  of  a  walk.  *  *  *  If 
they  made  such  a  man  as  he  absolute  master  of  ammunition, 
vessels,  circumstances,  and  money,  I  fear  I  should  soon  be 
forced  to  dispute  Macedonia  with  him;  he  who,  armed  with 
decrees  alone,  surrounds  me  on  all  sides,  surprises  me,  dis¬ 
covers  resources,  assembles  troops,  launches  upon  the  sea 
formidable  fleets,  puts  armies  into  the  field,  and  everywhere 
equals  me.”  * 

Philip  at  Chæronea  fought  against  Demosthenes  in 
fighting  against  Athens,  and  the  defeat  of  the  Pe- 
public  was  that  of  its  statesman.  Upon  the  field  of 
battle,  in  the  intoxication  of  victory,  Philip  thought 
first  of  Demosthenes:  “ Demosthenes ,  son  of  Demos¬ 
thenes  of  tlie  Pæanian  tribe ,  has  said  *  *  *  ”  He 
recited,  keeping  time,  the  beginning  of  a  decree  of  the 
patriot,  and  danced  around  the  corpses  that  covered 
the  plain;  then  recovering  from  his  first  transport,  “he 
shuddered  with  fear  at  the  thought  that  the  wonderful 
eloquence  of  Demosthenes  had  compelled  him  to  risk 
for  several  hours  his  empire  and  his  life.” f 

*  Lucian,  Life  of  Demosthenes. 

f  Plutarch,  Life  of  Demosthenes,  cli.  20. 


150  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

The  political  penetration  of  Demosthenes  sometimes 
appeared  at  fault;  his  ideas  of  Philip  and  of  the  weak¬ 
ness  of  the  empire  did  not  always  seem  worthy  of  an 
intelligent  statesman.  In  fact,  Demosthenes  does  not 
spare  his  invective  upon  this  “barbarian,  worthy  of 
all  names  one  could  wish  to  give  him.”  lie  most 
willingly  branded  his  envious  jealousy  and  debauchery; 
he  pictured  him  as  surrounded,  in  his  court  at  Pella, 
by  a  lot  of  fools,  thieves,  and  debauched  people, 
“abandoning  themselves  in  their  orgies  to  dances 
wdiich  I  would  blush  to  describe  to  you”;  and  still, 
in  this  respect,  Demosthenes  knew  that  the  Athe¬ 
nians  were  little  scrupulous  with  their  eyes  and  ears. 
This  satire  upon  Philip’s  morals  was  shabby,  ’tis  said: 
Æscliines  did  right  to  reproach  him  for  it.  Why  open 
the  eyes  to  gross  intemperance  and  close  them  to 
genius  ?  Some  say,  Demosthenes  was  guilty  of  a 
graver  mistake:  he  ignored  the  secret  of  Philip’s 
power,  a  culpable  error  in  an  orator  about  to  deter¬ 
mine  the  destin v  of  Athens  in  a  merciless  combat; 
but  it  appeared  at  the  beginning  of  the  struggle  and 
continued  until  the  eve  of  Chæronea.  The  last  Philip¬ 
pic,  like  the  first,  expressed  unwarrantable  disdain  and 
unfounded  hope. 

“  It  is  worthy  your  attention  to  consider  how  the  affairs  of 

Philip  are  at  this  time  circumstanced.  For  they  are  by  no 

means  so  well  disposed,  so  very  flourishing,  as  an  inattentive 

observer  would  pronounce.  Nor  would  he  have  engaged 

# 

in  this  war  at  all,  had  he  thought  he  should  have  been 
obliged  to  maintain  it.  He  hoped  that  the  moment  he  ap¬ 
peared,  all  things  would  fall  before  him.  But  these  hopes 
are  vain.  And  this  disappointment,  in  the  first  place,  troubles 
and  dispirits  him.”  *  Perhaps  his  prosperity  is  only  a  snare 


*  Third  Olynihiac ,  §  21. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  STATESMAN. 


151 


laid  by  divinity:  “For  great  and  unexpected  success  is  apt 
to  hurry  weak  minds  into  extravagances.  Hence  it  often 
proves  much  more  difficult  to  maintain  acquisitions  than  to 
acquire  them.” 

The  temple  of  Philip’s  power  apparently  so  threat¬ 
ening,  is  more  imposing  than  real,  and  rests  upon 
rotten  foundations. 

“For  when  forces  join  in  harmony  and  affection,  and  one 
common  interest  unites  the  confederating  powers,  then  they 
share  the  toils  with  alacrity, —  they  endure  the  distresses,  they 
persevere.  But  when  extravagant  ambition  and  lawless 
power  (as  in  his  case)  have  aggrandized  a  single  person,  the 
first  pretense,  the  slightest  accident,  overthrows  him,  and  all 
his  greatness  is  dashed  at  once  to  the  ground.  At  present 
his  successes  cast  a  shade  over  him;  for  prosperity  hath  great 
power  to  veil  such  baseness  from  observation.  But  let  his 
arms  meet  with  the  least  disgrace,  and  all  his  actions  will  be 
exposed;  for,  as  in  our  bodies,  while  a  man  is  in  health  he 
feels  no  effect  of  any  inward  weakness,  but  when  disease 
attacks  him,  everything  becomes  sensitive  in  the  vessels,  in 
the  joints,  or  in  whatever  part  his  frame  may  be  disordered. 
So  in  states  and  monarchies:  while  they  carry  on  a  war 
abroad,  their  defects  escape  the  general  eye;  but  when  once 
it  approaches  their  own  territory,  then  they  are  all  detected. 
Now  such  appears  to  be  the  fortune  of  this  man,  who  is  too 
feeble  for  the  load  he  wishes  to  carry.  *  *  *  And  I  also, 
Athenians,  would  have  believed  Philip  born  to  command  fear 
and  admiration  if  I  had  seen  him  rise  by  legitimate  means. 
*  *  *  But  it  is  not  possible,  Athenians, —  it  is  not  possible 
that  iniquity,  perjury  and  fraud  can  support  durable  powers. 
By  such  adventurous  means  they  may  sustain  themselves  once 
for  a  moment;  they  may  even  promise  the  most  flourishing 
future;  but  time  exposes  them,  and  they  fall  of  themselves. 
In  a  house,  a  vessel,  or  any  other  structure,  the  base  should 
be  the  most  solid  part,  and  likewise  it  is  good  to  give  prin- 


152 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


ciples  to  action,  a  foundation  of  justice  and  truth, —  now 
this  is  what  to-day  the  enterprises  of  Philip  lack.*’ 

The  statesman  may  here  be  said  to  be  the  dupe  of 
the  moralist;  the  jDatriot  mistakes  his  wishes  for  reali¬ 
ties;  he  deceives  himself,  and  deluding  one’s  self  is 
more  than  a  crime  for  a  statesman.  Æschines  alleged 
that  the  promises  of  Philip  misled  him.  Demosthenes 
rejected  this  excuse:  “It  is  not  admissible,  neither  in 
politics  nor  equity,  for  in  fact  you  induce,  yon  force  no 
one  to  mix  in  public  affairs;  only  when  a  man  who  is 
persuaded  ot  his  ability  presents  himself  do  you  wel¬ 
come  him  with  the  gratitude  of  a  good  and  confiding 
people,  and  without  jealous  objection.  He  becomes 
your  choice,  and  you  put  your  affairs  into  his  hands. 
If  he  is  successful,  he  will  be  honored  and  will  exalt  him¬ 
self  above  the  multitude;  but  if  he  fails,  shall  he  be 
cleared  of  it  with  excuses  and  evasions  ?  This  would 
not  be  just.  Would  the  allies  who  have  perished,  and 
their  wives  and  children,  and  so  many  other  unfortu¬ 
nate  victims,  be  indemnified  for  their  disasters  by  the 
thought  that  it  is  the  work  of  my  folly,  not  to  say  that 
of  Æscliines  ?  Very  far  from  it.”*  How,  can  we 
rightfully  use  these  words  against  their  author,  and 
throw  upon  him  the  responsibility  of  this  blunder  ? 

To  us  it  seems  easy  to  justify  Demosthenes.  Philip’s 
weakness,  as  described  by  him,  was  not  a  fancy.  Those 
domestic  and  national  dissensions  to  which  he  points 
really  existed;  the  very  death  of  the  conqueror  through 
court  intrigues  proves  it;  and  if  Demosthenes,  more 
confiding  it  seems  than  Phocion  in  the  equity  of  provi¬ 
dence  and  the  fortune  of  Athens,  preserved  some  hope 
till  the  end,  the  catastrophe  of  the  battle  of  Chæ- 
ronea,  whose  loss  was  due  solely  to  the  rashness  of 


*  Embassy ,  §  99. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  STATESMAN. 


153 


Lysicles,  then  the  sudden  fall  of  Alexander’s  empire, 
proved  that  the  orator’s  hopes  were  not  wholly  delu¬ 
sive.  u  If  each  city  had  had  but  one  citizen  like  me 
at  the  post  that  I  occupied, —  what  say  I?  —  if  but  a 
single  man  in  Thessaly,  a  single  man  in  Arcadia,  had 
thought  as  I  did,  no  Greek  on  this  or  the  other  side  of 
Thermopylae  could  have  been  reached  even  with  pres¬ 
ents  ;  but  free  and  self-governed,  without  peril  and 
without  fear,  they  would  all  live  happy  in  their  own 
country,  obliged  for  so  much  good  to  you,  to  all  Ath¬ 
ens,  thankful  to  me.”  Demosthenes  was  not  so  blinded 
by  his  hatred  of  Macedonia  as  to  believe  and  desire 
the  impossible.  That  which  he  saw  was  not  fanciful; 
and  when  often  he  feigned  not  to  see  it,  he  had  rea¬ 
sons,  easy  to  conceive,  for  hiding  it  from  the  people. 

It  is  in  fact  injudicious  to  admit  that  the  true  state  of 
affairs  had  escaped  the  penetration  of  such  a  mind. 
Demosthenes  was  reason  and  reflection  itself.  He  passed 
his  life  in  studying  Philip,  in  watching  all  the  turns  in 
domestic  and  foreign  affairs;  and  Philip,  through  his 
most  wonderful  qualities,  escaped  him.  We  would  not 
know  how  to  admit  such  a  strange  contradiction.  Who, 
then,  has  given  us  the  truest  portrait  of  Philip,  the 
general  and  the  politician,  unless  the  orator  of  the  Phi¬ 
lippics  f  Did  Demosthenes  ignore  the  advantages  that 
gave  to  Philip  the  defeat  of  the  Athenians  and  their 
democratic  constitution  ?  No,  he  perceived  them  clearly; 
but  he  did  not  believe  that  the  whole  reality  ought  to 
be  placed  before  the  eyes  of  his  hearers.  He  satirized 
Philip’s  habits  and  his  Macedonian  nights  (not  Attic) 
passed  with  actors,  outcasts  of  the  Piræus;  with  a  cer¬ 
tain  Callias,  a  public  slave,  rejected  by  Athens  with  dis¬ 
gust,  and  afterward  the  favorite  of  the  king.  He  called 
to  witness  a  person  who  had  been  in  that  country  an 


154 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


indignant  witness  of  Philip’s  baseness.  He  treated  the 
conqueror  as  a  common  drunkard, —  for  what  purpose  ? 
To  conceal  by  abuse  the  secret  devotion  of  a  man  who 
received  wages  ?  Let  us  leave  this  frivolous  interpreta¬ 
tion  to  vEschines.  He  used  thereby  an  orator’s  ac¬ 
knowledged  right  to  exaggerate  or  curtail,  according  to 
the  necessities  of  his  case.  A  Peter  of  Russia  could 
love  wine  as  Henry  IY  and  Louis  XIY  loved  other 
pleasures,  without  being  for  that  reason  less  worthy 
of  the  name  of  “  the  Great.”  Demosthenes  did  not 
exaggerate  the  extent  of  Philip’s  vices  unreasonably, 
and  he  certainly  would  not  have  sought  reasons  for 
it  if  his  auditors  were  merely  such  as  Lycurgus,  Hy- 
perides,  and  Eubulus.  But  intellectual  as  were  the 
citizens  of  Athens,  a  city  without  blockheads,  the  as¬ 
semblies  there  were  none  the  less  popular  assemblies. 
Oratory  before  the  Areopagus  or  at  the  Pnyx,  in  the 
forum  or  before  the  senate,  was  under  different  condi¬ 
tions.  Publius  Seipio  would  not  have  dared,  before 
the  conscript  fathers,  to  caricature  the  descent  of  Han¬ 
nibal’s  army  from  the  Alps,  as  he  did  before  his  army 
(Livy,  xxi,  40).  He  would  have  thought  only  of  in¬ 
structing  the  wise  company.  But  it  was  necessary  for 
him  to  fortify  the  courage  of  his  alarmed  soldiers;  and 
what  surer  way  than  to  inspire  them  with  contempt  of 
the  enemy  ?  Demosthenes  likewise  devoted  himself  to 
remove  the  fears  of  the  Athenians.  To  lessen  Philip’s 
strength  in  their  eyes  weakened  him,  for  it  strengthened 
the  confident  courage  of  those  whom  he  fought.  In 
general,  Demosthenes  paid  homage  to  Philip  when  he 
wished  to  spur  the  Athenians  to  emulation;  he  de¬ 
nounced  him,  and  justified  the  words  of  P.  L.  Courier, 
calling  him  “the  great  pamjMeteer  of  Greece,  ”  when 
he  wished  to  give  them  courage;  now,  this  was  above 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


155 


all  what  they  lacked.  The  orator  did  not  even  think 
of  concealing  his  tactics.  “  To  enumerate  the  elements 
of  Philip’s  power,  and  by  this  examination  arouse  you 
to  your  duty,  does  not  seem  convenient  to  me.  And 
why  ?  Because  all  that  could  be  said  in  this  respect 
would  not  be  without  glory  to  him,  and  not  an  eulogy 
to  our  conduct.  *  *  *  But  that  which  before  an  impar¬ 
tial  judge  would  cover  you  with  ignominy,  is  what  I 
shall  try  to  tell  you  here.”  While  he  disparaged  their 
adversary  he  endeavored  to  strengthen  their  own  feel¬ 
ings  and  raise  them  to  the  level  of  their  ancestors; 
sometimes  he  played  upon  their  fear.  “Philip  not 
only  wishes  to  subjugate  Athens,  but  to  annihilate  it,” 
an  exaggeration  suiting  the  purpose  of  the  orator. 
Sometimes  instead  of  exaggerating  he  attenuated  the 
danger.  Demosthenes  called  the  Amphictyonie  title 
decreed  to  Philip  a  “vain  shadow.”  Can  we  dare  con¬ 
clude  that  he  did  not  foresee  for  what  purpose  the  adroit 
Macedonian  would  use  this  remark  ?  Tie  foresaw  it  but 
too  well;  but  powerless  as  he  saw  Athens  to  rescue  this 
sacred  weapon  from  a  prince  who,  by  the  consent  of 
all,  had  become  the  protector  of  Delphi  and  its  Pythia, 
Demosthenes  should  be  praised  for  speaking  disdain¬ 
fully  of  a  title  whose  denial  would  have  provoked  a 
formidable  levy  of  bucklers  against  his  country.  Let 
us  continue  to  do  homage  to  his  wisdom  and  his  de¬ 


signs;  let  us  not  impute  to  political  blindness  that  for 
which  the  moralist  and  the  orator  may  be  more  prop¬ 
erly  praised. 

Enlightened  judges  have  esteemed  Demosthenes  one 
of  the  greatest  statesmen  of  antiquity;  others  have  ac¬ 
cused  him  of  driving  his  country  to  the  precipice.  Was 
Demosthenes  right  or  wrong  in  advocating  war  against 
the  Macedonians  ?  Polybius  reproached  him  for  it. 


156 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


“The  struggle  of  the  Athenians  against  Philip  tended 
to  plunge  them  into  still  greater  evils;  and  without  the 
magnanimity  of  the  king  and  his  love  of  glory,  the 
policy  of  Demosthenes  would  have  caused  them  still 
heavier  misfortunes.  ”  Polybius  reproves  Demosthenes 
for  having  denounced  as  “traitors”  the  most  important 
people  of  those  cities  that  concluded  an  alliance  with 
Macedonia.  These  citizens  were  not  traitors,  but  rather 
“benefactors”  and  “saviors,”  since  their  frien 
for  Philip  preserved  their  country  from  the  greatest  dis¬ 
asters,  and  secured  them  very  marked  advantages  over 
inimical  cities.  The  friend  of  Scipio  Æmilianus  could 
not  speak  otherwise  without  running  the  risk  of  a  trial. 
Polybius,  friendly  to  the  Romans  in  their  struggle 
against  Perseus,  procured  them  the  help  of  the  Acliæan 
league,  whose  cavalry  he  commanded;  therefore  he 
praises  himself  when  he  congratulates  Aristlienes  for 
having  made  the  Acliæan  league  pass  over  “properly” 
from  the  alliance  of  Philip  to  the  friendship  of  the  Ro¬ 
mans;  a  policy  which  for  the  Acliæans  was  a  source  of 
“security”  and  “  aggrandizement.”  Polybius’ views 
were  narrow  and  selfish.  He  justified  the  desertion  of 
nations  on  the  ground  that  their  secession  was  person¬ 
ally  profitable  to  themselves.*  Demosthenes  consid¬ 
ered  interest  higher  than  independence  and  national 
dignity.  He  accused  the  cities  aiding  Philip  of  failing 
in  their  duties  to  the  Hellenic  cause;  Polybius  insists 
upon  the  advantages  which  the  alleged  traitors  procured 
for  their  country.  Nevertheless  Demosthenes  affirmed 
that  all  the  cities  guilty  of  treason  had  more  to  suffer 

*  Polybius,  xvii,  14,  13.  Bora  at  Megalopolis,  in  Arcadia,  the  his¬ 
torian  would  have  greatly  desired  to  protect  his  compatriots  from  the 
branding  reproaches  of  Demosthenes. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  STATESMAN. 


157 


from  the  triumph  of  the  Macedonian  than  Athens  her¬ 
self,  and  history  proves  him  right.* 

Mablyf  quotes  Polybius,  and  approves  him:  u  This 
orator  grossly  deceived  himself  if  he  believed  all  the 
Greeks  would  consult  the  interests  of  the  Athenians.  If 
each  republic,  after  the  fall  of  the  federal  government, 
could  count  only  on  itself,  and  had  none  but  foes  for 
neighbors,  why  did  Demosthenes  believe  himself  jus¬ 
tified  in  demanding  that  Thessaly,  on  the  frontiers  of 
Macedonia,  and  which  Philip  himself  had  delivered 
from  tyrants,  should  become  ungrateful  f  and  expose 
itself  to  the  evils  of  war,  to  give  Greece  a  useless  ex¬ 
ample  of  courage,  and  appear  attached  to  the  principles 
of  a  union  that  no  longer  existed  ?  If  the  Argives 
implored  the  protection  of  Philip,  it  was  because  Lace- 
dæmon  still  desired  to  be  the  tyrant  of  the  Pelopon¬ 
nesus,  and  because  Macedonia  alone  could  give  them 
useful  help.  If  the  Thebans  allied  themselves  with 
Philip,  it  was  because  they  saw  that  the  Greeks  no 
longer  wished  to  be  free,  and  that  they  thought  it  'pru¬ 
dent  not  to  offend  the  most  poweiful  enemy  of  public 
liberty.  Why  did  not  Demosthenes  perceive  that  the 
injuries  with  which  he  afflicted  the  principal  magis¬ 
trates  of  Messenia,  Megalopolis,  Thebes,  and  Argos, 
far  from  preparing  their  minds  for  the  alliance  which 
he  contemplated,  were  but  able  to  multiply  the  civil 
hatred  and  domestic  quarrels  of  Greece  ?  By  his  in¬ 
considerate  conduct  *  *  *  he  himself  served  the  am¬ 
bition  of  .Philip.  After  having  tried  the  feebleness, 
irresolution  and  timidity  of  the  Athenians,  why  did  he 

*  Grote,  History  of  Greece. 

f  Observations  sur  l'histoire  de  la  Grèce  (édit,  of  1791),  iv,  p.  157. 

%  Thus  Polybius  ( Examples  of  Virtues  and  Vices,  §  38)  opposes  tlic 
generous  virtue  of  Philip  to  the  ungrateful  obstinacy  of  Athens. 


158 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


wish  that  the  other  cities  should  do  for  them  what  they 
would  not  do  for  themselves  ?  After  having  learned 
by  experience  the  uselessness  of  the  embassies  with 
which  he  fatigued  Greece,  why  did  he  not  change  his 
views  ?  and  can  we  not  condemn  him  as  a  statesman 
and  ccs  a  citizen ,  while  we  admire  him  as  an  orator?” 
Mably  would  very  willingly  accept  the  saying  of  the 
sceptics  of  Athens:  “Demosthenes  does  not  know  his 
country;  he  is  a  fool.”*  In  return  he  exalts  the  ad¬ 
mirable  sense  of  “  Phocion,  who,  as  great  a  general  as 
Demosthenes  was  a  bad  soldier,  knew  how,  by  advis¬ 
ing  submission,  to  put  himself  within  reach  of  his  fel¬ 
low  citizens.”  f 

We  shall  leave  to  Mably  the  care  of  refuting  himself. 
Is  it  not  in  fact  refuting  one’s  self  to  render  homage  to 
Demosthenes  in  terms  that  assure  him  of  our  sym¬ 
pathy  at  the  cost  of  the  prince,  his  opponent?  “Philip 
feared  the  impetuous  eloquence  that  denounced  him 
as  a  tyrant.  He  did  not  wish  that  the  pride  of  the 
Greeks  should  be  revived  by  awakening  the  memory 
of  the  great  deeds  of  their  fathers.  To  speak  to  them 
of  the  price  of  liberty  was  to  force  them  to  act  with 
circumspection  distasteful  to  an  ambitious  man.  The 
more  Philip  endeavored  to  deprive  Greece  of  her  lib- 


*  Demosthenes,  Embassy  :  è/j '.ftsfipovT^GOai,  àyvoeïv. 

f  Æschines  ( Against  Gtesiphon)  rails  at  a  “  long  ”  decree  of  Demos¬ 
thenes,  “full  of  hopes  that  could  not  be  realized,  and  of  armies  des¬ 
tined  never  to  unite.”  Was  this  the  fault  of  Demosthenes  or  that  of 
the  Athenians?  This  criticism  is  as  good  as  the  argument  of  Mably: 
“  Demosthenes  expected  nothing  from  his  enterprises,  since  in  the 
great  number  of  exordia  that  he  composed  in  advance,  one  hardly 
tinds  two  or  three  which  he  had  prepared  for  a  happy  result.”  De¬ 
mosthenes  had  not  to  fear  that  in  case  of  success  he  would  lack  words  ; 
joy  would  assure  him  of  the  improvisation  of  an  exordium  to  his 
liking. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  STATESMAN. 


159 


erty,  and  to  inspire  lier  with  a  certain  indolence  that 
would  prepare  her  to  obey  when  she  would  be  con¬ 
quered,  the  more  he  saw  with  chagrin  that  the  Athe¬ 
nian  orator  revealed  his  projects,  taught  the  Greeks 
beforehand  that  they  would  some  day  blush  for  the 
servitude  that  was  inevitable,  and,  in  a  certain  way, 
rendered  the  fruits  of  his  victories  uncertain  by  pre¬ 
paring  them  to  become  unquiet  and  seditious.  *  *  * 
Till  then  there  had  been  no  one  in  Greece  but  this  ora¬ 
tor,  who,  unraveling  the  ambitious  plans  of  the  Mace¬ 
donian,  had  discovered  the  dangers  with  which  the 
liberty  of  his  country  was  menaced.  If  any  man  was 
able  to  draw  the  Athenians  out  of  the  disgrace  into 
which  their  taste  for  pleasure  had  cast  them,  and  to 
restore  to  the  Greeks  their  ancient  valor,  that  man 
was  Demosthenes,  whose  burning  orations  inflame  the 
reader  even  to-day.  But  he  spoke  to  deaf  people;  and, 
thanks  to  the  more  eloquent  gifts  of  Philip,  from  the 
time  the  orator  in  thundering  terms  proposed  decrees, 
to  conclude  alliances,  form  leagues,  levy  armies  and 
equip  galleys,  a  thousand  voices  cried  out  that  peace 
was  the  greatest  blessing,  and  that  it  was  not  worth  while 
to  sacrifice  the  present  to  the  imaginary  fears  of  the 
future.*  Demosthenes  appealed  to  love  of  glory,  love 
of  country,  love  of  liberty,  but  these  virtues  no  longer 
existed  in  Greece;  the  pensioners  of  Philip  stirred  up 
and  created  in  his  favor  laziness,  avarice,  and  effemi¬ 
nacy.” 

“A  victory  due  to  such  means  lias  little  honor,  especially 
when  we  consider  for  what  bad  purposes  it  was  used  by  a 
prince  who  could  only  be  praised  for  having  the  art  to  de- 

*  “  If  the  Arcadians  neglected  a  remote  evil  to  seek  a  remedy  for 
the  one  that  oppressed  them ,  ought  Demosthenes  to  make  it  one  of 
their  crimes  ?  ”  (Mably.) 


160 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GKEECE. 


base  the  Greek  and  to  destroy  the  remnant  of  courage  they 
owed  to  their  liberty.  *  *  *  Working  but  to  satisfy  his  am¬ 
bition,  he  employed  the  greatest  talents  and  rarest  gifts  of 
genius  but  to  construct  an  edifice  which,  after  his  death, 
must  crumble  into  dust.” 

Thus  Philip  did  not  serve  the  cause  of  “ humanity” 
as  he  ought  to  have  done.  He  was  not  a  provident 
man.  Why  then  summon  Demosthenes  to  trial,  the 
enemy  of  a  conqueror  who  did  not  even  claim  the 
excuse  of  having  bettered  what  he  conquered?  In 
short,  Mably  has  written  in  another  work: 

“With  what  noble  and  passionate  firmness  do  free  states 
defend  their  liberty!  Macedonia  had  more  trouble  in  sub¬ 
jugating  several  cities  of  Greece  than  entire  Asia.  Asia, 
once  vanquished,  submitted  forever.  Vanquished  Greece  did 
not  at  all  allow  herself  to  be  overwhelmed  with  disgrace; 
*  *  *  she  still  found  enough  courage  in  herself,  under  Alex¬ 
ander  and  after  him,  to  resist  her  own  vices  and  the  power¬ 
ful  princes  who  had  the  art  of  dividing  her.  The  desire  to 
be  free  remained  after  liberty  seemed  to  be  irretrievably  lost, 
and  produced  the  Achaean  league  that  could  not  be  destroyed 
but  by  another  republic  destined  to  conquer  all.” 

It  is  not  very  easy  to  comprehend  how  the  author 
of  these  lines  on  the  virtue  of  liberty  could  disown 
the  orator  whose  passion  was  to  awaken  its  desire. 
Mably’s  thoughts  lack  cohesion  and  precision,  or, 
rather,  his  thoughts  and  his  sentiments  contradict  one 
another.  This  was  the  eternal  struggle  of  cold  intel¬ 
lect,  moved  everywhere  by  interest, with  the  generous 
inspiration  and  impulse  of  honor.  It  is  Demosthenes’ 
glory  to  have  ignored  these  internal  struggles  and  to 
have  done  all  that  the  dignity  of  Athens  might  come 
out  triumphant.  “Distrust  the  first  move,”  said  a 
politician.  It  is  always  the  best.  The  first  move- 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


161 


ment  of  Demosthenes  was  that  of  his  whole  life. 
Mably  has  condemned  him,  bnt  at  the  expense  of  con¬ 
tradictions  that  refute  his  iniquitous  judgment. 

An  eminent  genius,  who  has  with  distinction  applied 
his  high  faculties  to  the  exposition  of  philosophical 
doctrines,  M.  Cousin,  has  judged  Demosthenes  in  one 
of  his  most  magnificent  lectures.*  The  passage  merits 
citation:  “Demosthenes,  after  all,  was  nothing  hut  a 
great  orator.  Demosthenes,  in  his  time,  represented 
the  past  of  Greece,  the  spirit  of  small  cities  and  small 
republics,  a  worn-out  and  corrupt  democracy, —  a  past 
that  could  be  no  more  and  that  was  no  more.  To 
revive  a  past  irretrievably  gone  it  was  necessary  to 
wager  truly  against  the  possible.  It  was  necessary 
to  attempt  an  unfolding  of  force  and  energy  of  which 
others  were  incapable,  and  himself  like  the  rest;  for, 
in  short,  one  is  always  a  little  like  others;  one  belongs 
to  his  time.  So  Demosthenes  failed;  I  add,  with  his¬ 
tory,  that  he  failed  shamefully.  *  *  *  The  eloquence 
of  Demosthenes  is  almost  like  his  life.  It  is  convul¬ 
sive,  demagogical,  very  unlike  a  statesman.  ITe 
had  enough  of  invective  and  dialectics,  as  well  as  of  a 
skillful  and  wise  use  of  language.  But  take  the  ora¬ 
tions  of  Pericles,  poorly  arranged  as  they  are  by  Thu¬ 
cydides,  compare  them  with  those  of  Demosthenes, 
and  you  will  see  what  a  difference  there  is  between 
the  eloquence  of  the  leader  of  a  great  nation  and  that 
of  the  leader  of  a  party.  [It  would  be  difficult  to 
compress  more  errors  into  fewer  words.]  If  the  strug¬ 
gles  of  «nations  are  sad,  if  the  vanquished  claim  our 
pity,  we  must  reserve  our  greater  sympathy  for  the 
conqueror  [for  Cæsar,  apparently,  and  not  for  Ver¬ 
cingétorix],  since  all  victory  infallibly  indicates  prog- 

*  Introduction  à  l'histoire  de  la  philosophie  :  lOtli  lecture. 

7* 


162 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


ress  of  the  human  race.  *  *  *  Unfortunate  heroes 
excite  in  us  deeper  sympathy  than  nations.  Individ¬ 
uality  adds  to  sympathy,  hut  even  there  ’tis  better  to 
be  on  the  side  of  the  conqueror,  for  it  is  always  that 
of  the  better  cause,  that  of  civilization  and  of  human¬ 
ity,  that  of  the  present  and  of  the  future,  since  that  of 
the  vanquished  is  always  that  of  the  past.  A  great 
man  vanquished  is  a  great  man  out  of  place  in  his 
time.  His  triumph  would  stop  the  progress  of  the 
world.  We  must  therefore  applaud  his  defeat,  since 
it  was  useful,  since  with  his  great  qualities,  his  virtues 
and  his  genius,  he  marched  against  humanity  and 
time.” 

Thus  Demosthenes  is  culpable  for  having  yielded  to 
the  allurements  of  patriotism,  because  he  marched 
against  humanity  and  time.  The  triumph  of  Greece 
would  have  arrested  the  progress  of  the  world.  These 
are  grand  expressions,  but  when  time  alone  has  re¬ 
vealed  to  us  what  was  hidden  from  Demosthenes  by  the 
shadows  of  the  future,  it  is  easier  than  it  is  just  to 
draw,  at  the  expense  of  the  generous  citizen,  the  pom¬ 
pous  conclusions  of  a  transcendental  philosophy. 

His  maxim  was  that  of  Pericles,  not  to  seek,  for 
the  sake  of  our  misgivings,  to  sound  the  future.* 
4  ‘  Prophets  should  never  sit  in  the  council  of  states¬ 
men.”*!'  What  we  attribute  to  the  force  of  circum¬ 
stances  is  often  due  to  the  mere  weakness  of  men. 
Therefore  the  least  questionable  duty  is  here  the  near¬ 
est.  With  righteous  souls  the  moral  of  the  present 
will  always  prevail  against  the  philosophy  of  the  fu- 

*  “  They  have  abandoned  the  uncertainty  of  success  to  hope,  but 
think  that  they  ought  to  count  only  upon  themselves  in  the  face  of 
the  present  duty.”  ( Funeral  Eulogy ,  Thucydides,  ii,  42.) 

f  Cf.  De  Rémusat  (1834),  cited  by  M.  Stiévenart. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


163 


turc.  Demosthenes  may  have  spoken  in  the  name  of 
extinct  virtue.  Be  it  so,  but  he  spoke  in  the  name 
of  virtue.  Intelligent  as  Themistocles,  he  was  not 
wholly  ignorant  of  his  inability  to  repair  the  edifice 
from  the  foundation,  decayed  by  time.  In  Aris¬ 
tophanes,  Agoraoritus  makes  People  pass  over  to  the 
frying-pan  and  give  him  back  his  ancient  virtues,  to¬ 
gether  with  youth.  The  counsellor  of  Athens  could 
not  effect  this  magical  change;  but  he  was  worthy  of 
praise  for  trying  to  draw  from  a  dull  old  man  the  last 
spark  of  youthful  ardor.  So  many  others  around  De¬ 
mosthenes  counselled  the  useful,  the  present  utility. 
It  was  well  for  the  highest  interests  of  Athens  that  the 
voice  of  their  ancestors  resounded  for  a  last  time  on 
the  tribune,  that  the  emulation  of  the  past  was  pro¬ 
posed  as  the  pledge  of  certain  esteem,  at  least  of  the 
respect  of  prosperity.  Demosthenes,  a  worthy  pupil 
•of  Pericles,  said  to  the  Athenians:  “In  deliberations 
of  public  interest  the  glory  of  our  ancestors  is  the 
only  law  to  consult.  Each  citizen,  if  he  wishes  to 
do  nothing  but  what  this  law  approves,  ought,  in 
mounting  the  tribune  to  judge  a  public  cause,  to  think 
that  with  the  insignia  of  his  office  he  is  invested  with 
the  dignity  of  Athens.”  ITe  himself  set  the  example. 
He  struggled,  in  the  name  of  national  honor,  against 
the  selfishness  of  citizens,  the  paltry  interests  of  that 
always  abundant  class  of  people  attached  exclusively 
to  the  prosperity  of  their  own  trifling  affairs,  to  the 
inviolability  of  their  own  well-being, —  the  Chrysalcs 
of  patriotism,  whose  horizon  is  a  good  soup  and  a 
well-cooked  roast.  Citizens  like  these  were  not  scarce 
at  Athens.*  Aristophanes  engaged  them  in  the  gross 

*“One  dies  on  politics,  one  lives  on  business,”  is  tlieir  device. 
We  suppose  they  will  shortly  translate  beneficium  as  benefit. 


164 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


pleasantries  of  his  Acharnians ,  and  employed  his  comic 
whims  in  increasing  their  number.  Three  cheers  for 
ringdoves  and  thrushes,  tripe  with  honey,  eels  from 
lake  Copai's,  biscuits,  nicknacks,  beautiful  dancers,  and 
cool  wine  !  Fie  on  war  and  its  disgraces  !  In  truth, 
Lamachus  is  well  advanced,  having  gone  to  break  his 
lance  against  the  enemies.  Pay  attention  !  There  he 
is  coming  back  amidst  the  laughter  of  the  theater, 
with  a  cut  from  a  lance  somewhere  else  than  in  the 
breast,  groaning,  limping,  legs  out  of  joint,  head  half 
split,  and  without  his  plumes  ! 

This  is  the  depth  of  Diceopolis’  political  morality. 
This  just  man  and  his  equals  saw  in  a  buckler  the 
picture  of  a  cheese,  in  a  spear  a  spit.  They  judged 
everything  from  the  standpoint  of  good  living  and  of 
enjoyment.  Very  often  such  were  the  Athenians  of 
Demosthenes’  time,  when  the  love  of  peace  at  any 
price  was  much  less  excusable  than  at  the  time  of  the 
Peloponnesian  war.  The  contemporaries  of  Aristoph¬ 
anes  doubted  whether  it  was  their  duty  to  dispute 
preeminence  with  Sparta,  or  to  seek  the  aggrandize¬ 
ment  of  Athens  in  Sicily.  Demosthenes’  hearers  could 
not  doubt  their  obligation  to  drive  the  Macedonian 
from  Greece.  Thus  the  orator,  in  attacking  Philip, 
obedient  to  the  dictates  of  his  conscience,  could  not 
fail,  and  if  he  failed,  his  mistake  was  happy,  and  more 
enviable  than  the  cold  prudence  of  the  foreigner’s 
partisans.  There  are  situations  where  honor  com¬ 
mands  us  to  fight,  though  the  cause  be  hopeless. 
If  heaven  has  designs,  it  will  always  have  power  to 
accomplish  them,  and  men  at  least  will  have  obeyed 
that  secret  voice  which  inspired  a  .hero  of  Corneille 
with  this  honest  maxim:  “Do  your  duty ,  and  to  the 
gods  leave  the  rest  A 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 


165 


Now,  it  was  undoubtedly  Athens’  duty  to  delay 
servitude  by  the  manly  efforts  of  an  hour,  and  not 
to  hasten  it  by  a  weak  submission.  Fancying  one’s 
self  to  discover  the  men  of  Providence,  and  aiding  the 
evolutions  of  humanity  by  rallying  to  tlieir  standards, 
is  to  enter  a  dangerous  way.  Patriotism  here  can 
easily  err. 

Demosthenes,  condemned  by  speculative  philosophy 
and  poetry,  is  acquitted  by  common  sense  and  morality. 
It  is  a  narrowness  of  honorable  minds  not  to  set  them¬ 
selves  up  as  especially  interested  interpreters  of  divine 
commands,  but  to  oblige  themselves  modestly  to  do 
their  duty  without  words.  Fénelon  *  declares  that  Atti- 
cus  was  wiser  than  even  Cicero  and  Cato.  Demosthenes, 
in  his  eyes,  was  wrong  in  struggling  against  Philip; 
it  was  impossible  for  him  to  restore  his  republic,  and 
to  guard  her  from  danger.  The  preceptor  of  the  Duke 
of  Bourgoyne  makes  a  distinction  between  the  duty 
of  a  private  citizen  and  that  of  a  prince:  “A  mere 
private  man  ought  to  think  of  nothing  but  of  regulating 
his  own  affairs,  and  of  governing  his  family;  he  ought 
never  to  desire  public  offices,  still  less  seek  them.” 
God  has  provided  for  this  abstinence  by  entrusting 
the  mission  of  governing  a  state  to  a  prince,  who 
would  not  be  at  liberty  to  abandon  it,  “in  however 
bad  a  state  it  was.”  Without  thinking  of  it,  Fénelon 
eulogizes  the  republican  constitution:  where  there 
is  no  monarch,  the  citizens  inherit  his  duties,  and 
ought,  in  his  place  and  position,  never  to  abandon, 
desperate  as  it  may  seem,  the  cause  of  the  state.  The 
republic  is  not  intrusted  to  the  care  of  a  single  man, 
but  to  the  devotion  of  each  of  her  children;  Demos¬ 
thenes’  care  did  not  fail  her.  “Seeing  that  all  Greece 

*  Thirty-third  Dialogue,  .Dêmosthène  et  Cicéron. 


166  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

f 

was  humiliated,  branded  and  corrupted,  by  those  who 
received  the  gifts  of  Philip  and  Alexander  for  the  ruin 
of  their  country,  that  his  city  needed  a  man  and  all 
Greece  a  city  to  take  the  lead,  he  gave  himself  to  his 
country,  and  the  city  to  Greece  for  liberty.” 

This  homage,  rendered  by  Hyperides  to  Leostlienes, 
seems  to  he  addressed  to  the  orator  of  the  Philippics. 
Demosthenes  was  conscious  of  having  served  his 
country  well,  “an  august  and  holy  recompense  in 
the  eyes  of  him  who  esteemed  virtue  and  honor.”  He 
enjoyed  still  another:  roused  by  Æschines  to  avenge 
her  defeat  upon  her  counsellor,  Athens,  acknowledging 
his  services,  decreed  him  a  golden  crown,  less  brilliant, 
however,  than  that  with  which  he  enriched  his  coun¬ 
try’s  brow.  With  all  due  deference  to  the  critics  vexed 
by  his  policy,  Athens  may  be  pardoned  for  a  part  of 
her  long-extended  weakness;  her  vigor,  tardy,  but 
worthy  of  her  past,  has  merited  and  will  still  receive 
the  eulogies  of  the  future. 


CHAPTER  Y. 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  ELEMENTS  AND  CHAR¬ 
ACTERISTICS  OF  DEMOSTHENES’  ELOQUENCE. 


portrait  of  my  thoughts,  a  monument  far  more  beautiful  than  statues 
of  bronze.”  (Socrates.) 

U  Demosthenes  the  statesman  is  reflected  in  the  ora- 


J-  tor  ;  Demosthenes  is  therefore  the  most  useful 
model  to  be  studied  by  men  who  are  called  upon  to 
govern  their  equals  by  speech.  TIis  eloquence  is  prac¬ 
tical  and  positive,  born  of  affairs  and  used  for  them.  In 
this  sense  we  can  well  accept  Rousseau’s  words:  “Ani¬ 
mated  by  Demosthenes’  masculine  eloquence,  my  stu¬ 
dent  will  exclaim,  This  is  an  orator!  But  in  reading 
Cicero,  he  will  exclaim,  This  is  an  advocate!”  On 
the  rostrum,  Demosthenes  disdains  the  artifices  of  art 
and  the  desire  to  please  the  mind  by  employing  re¬ 
sources  of  the  imagination.  An  oration  in  Demosthe¬ 
nes’  style,  delivered  in  our  days  before  the  English  Par¬ 
liament,  or  before  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
would  produce  a  greater  effect  than  the  most  magnifi¬ 
cent  harangues  of  the  Roman  consul.  Cicero  spoke 
before  auditors  who  were  moved  by  everything  that  dis¬ 
played  theatrical  pomp.  Rome’s  majesty  was  imprinted 
in  his  eloquence,  and  his  eloquence  was  embellished 
like  the  patrician’s  toga.  The  Attic  genius,  as  simple 
and  precise  as  the  pallium,  was  not  adorned  with  this 
magisterial  fullness.  Demosthenes  aimed  at  enlighten- 


167 


168 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GllEECE. 


J 


ment  and  conviction  before  all  other  things  ;  and  in  treat¬ 
ing  public  affairs  without  an  apparent  trace  of  literary 
care, he  realized  effective  eloquence, — the  only  eloquence 
relished  by  our  modern  political  assemblies.  He  car¬ 
ried  the  votes  most  difficult  to  win,  and  like  Yoltaire, 
he  accomplished  it  without  making  a  phrase.  In  him 
there  was  no  show,  no  ostentation;  no  great  words  nor 
periods  for  effect.  “  His  good  sense  spoke  without  any 
other  ornament  than  its  own  force.  He  made  truth  in¬ 
telligible  to  the  whole  people;  he  awakened  them, 
he  stimulated  them,  he  showed  to  them  the  yawning 
abyss.  All  was  said  for  the  common  safety,  not  one 
word  for  the  orator  himself.*  All  was  instructive  and 
touching,  nothing  brilliant.” 

Demosthenes  pursued  his  object  constantly  and 
bravely,  without  ever  deviating  to  amplify;  he  ab¬ 
stained  from  all  development,  even  that  which  would 
bjer  most  favorable  to  eloquence  and  most  agreeable  to 
the  ears  of  the  people,  if  it  was  not  essentially  necessary. 
Clearness,  luminous  precision,  these  were  the  secrets  of 
his  power. 


“And  if  you  will  be  persuaded,  Athenians,  first  to  raise  these 
supplies  which  I  have  recommended,  then  to  proceed  to  your 
other  preparations, —  your  infantry,  navy,  and  cavalry;  and 
lastly  to  confine  your  forces  by  a  law  to  that  service  which  is 
appointed  to  them;  reserving  the  care  and  distribution  of 
their  money  to  yourselves,  and  strictly  examining  into  the 
conduct  of  the  general;  then  your  time  will  be  no  longer 
wasted  in  continual  debates  upon  the  same  subject,  and 
scarcely  to  any  purpose;  then  you  will  deprive  him  of  the 
most  considerable  of  his  revenues;  for  his  arms  are  now 


*  Fénelon,  Lettre  à  V Académie.  Cicero’s  orations  are  full  of  Cicero. 
Demosthenes’  biographers  cannot,  to  their  deep  regret,  derive  any  in¬ 
formation  from  Demosthenes’  harangues. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


169 


% 


supported  by  seizing  and  making  prizes  of  those  who  pass  the 
seas.  But  is  this  all?  No;  you  shall  also  be  secure  from 
his  attempts;  not  as  when  some  time  since  he  fell  on  Lemnos 
and  Imbrus,  and  carried  away  your  citizens  in  chains;  not  as 
when  he  surprised  your  vessels  at  Gerastus,  and  spoiled  them 
of  ah  unspeakable  quantity  of  riches;  not  as  when  lately 
he  made  a  descent  upon  the  coast  of  Marathon,  and  carried 
off  our  sacred  galley;  while  you  could  neither  oppose  these 
insults,  nor  detach  your  forces  at  such  junctures  as  were 
thought  convenient.’** 

“  I  have  heard  it  objected,  ‘that  indeed  I  ever  speak  with 
reason;  yet  still  this  is  no  more  than  words, f  that  the  state 
requires  something  more  effectual,  some  vigorous  actions.’ 
Upon  which  I  shall  give  my  sentiments  without  the  least 
reserve.  The  sole  business  of  a  speaker  is,  in  my  opinion, 
to  propose  the  course  you  are  to  pursue.  This  were  easy 
to  be  proved.  You  know  that  when  the  great  Timotheus 
moved  you  to  defend  the  Eubceans  against  the  tyranny  of 
Thebes,  he  addressed  you  thus:  ‘What,  my  countrymen! 
when  the  Thebans  are  actually  in  the  island,  are  you  de¬ 
liberating  what  is  to  be  done?  what  part  to  be  taken?  Will 
you  not  cover  the  seas  with  your  navies?  Why  are  you  not 
at  the  Piræus?  why  are  you  not  embarked?’  Thus  Timo¬ 
theus  advised;  thus  you  acted;  and  success  ensued.  But  had 
he  spoken  with  the  same  spirit,  and  had  your  indolence  pre¬ 
vailed,  and  his  advice  been  rejected,  would  the  state  have 
had  the  same  success?  By  no  means.  And  so  in  the  present 
case,  vigor  and  execution  is  your  part;  from  your  speakers 
you  are  only  to  expect  wisdom  and  integrity. 

*  First  Philippic ,  §  33. 

t  Aéyew  rà  apurra:  to  say  only  what  is  best  to  be  said  in  the 
people’s  interest  is  the  utmost  requirement  of  the  law.  The 
orator  who  fails  in  this  duty  is  subject  to  the  denunciation  called 
eiaayyeXia.  Demosthenes  willingly  uses  this  formula  in  order  to 
remind  the  Athenians  of  his  devotion  to  the  superior  law  of  patriot 
ism.  (Hyperides,  Against  Polyeuctus.) 

8 


170  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

I  shall  just  give  the  summary  of  my  opinion,  and  then 
descend.  You  should  raise  supplies,  you  should  keep  up 
your  present  forces,  and  reform  whatever  abuses  may  be 
found  in  them  (not  break  them  entirely  upon  the  first  com¬ 
plaint).  You  should  send  ambassadors  into  all  parts,  to 
reform,  to  remonstrate,  to  exert  all  their  efforts  in  the  ser¬ 
vice  of  their  state.  But,  above  all  things,  let  those  corrupt 
ministers  feel  the  severest  punishment;  let  them,  at  all  times, 
and  in  all  places,  be  the  objects  of  your  abhorrence;  that 
wise  and  faithful  counsellors  may  appear  to  have  consulted 
their  own  interest  as  well  as  that  of  others.  If  you  will 
act  thus,  if  you  will  shake  off  this  indolence,  perhaps, —  even 
yet,  perhaps, — we  may  promise  ourselves  some  good  fortune. 
But  if  you  only  just  exert  yourselves  in  acclamations  and 
applauses,  and  when  anything  is  to  be  done,  sink  again  into 
your  supineness,  I  do  not  see  how  all  the  wisdom  in  the 
world  can  save  the  state  from  ruin,  when  you  deny  your 
assistance.”  * 

This  is  invincible  evidence,  and  one  that  forces  assent 
like  an  arithmetical  demonstration,  according  to  Æs- 
cliines’  comparison. 

Demosthenes  ignored  long  preparations,  he  never 
“beat  about  the  bush,” — he  went  directly  to  the  facts. 
“  Brief  and  without  pretense  will  be  my  début,  Athe¬ 
nians.  In  my  eyes  the  sincere  orator  ought,  from 
his  first  words,  to  clearly  expose  his  proposition. 
When  his  opinion  is  known,  if  you  wish  to  hear  him 
further,  he  explains  himself,  he  develops  his  plans 
and  means.  If  you  reject  his  proposal,  he  descends 
from  the  rostrum  without  fatiguing  your  patience  and 
his  voice  to  no  purpose.  I  therefore  enter  at  once 
upon  my  subject.  Democracy  is  outraged  at  Mytilene, 
and  you  ought  to  avenge  this  injury.  By  what  means? 


*  Oration  on  the  Chersonesus ,  §  73. 


DEMOSTHENES 


TIIE  ORATOR. 


171 


I  can  tell  you,  when  I  shall  have  established  the 
reality  of  this  oppression,  and  your  duty  to  put  an 
end  to  it.”  Brief  and  full  of  sense,  such  is  his  aim; 
proofs  and  examples  are  at  once  presented  in  his 
thoughts;  he  confines  himself  to  facts  which  are  best 
known  and  best  adapted  to  his  purpose  (jmiiara 
Tcpoyjtpov ):  he  can  choose.  He  never  likes  to  hear 
himself  speak,  he  has  no  leisure  for  it;  he  does  not 
mount  the  rostrum  to  speak,  but  to  act,  if  we  can 
use  such  an  expression.  This  brevity,  always  laud¬ 
able,  was  particularly  necessary  in  an  orator  whose 
reprimands  contained  no  flattery  for  Athenian  weak¬ 
ness.  Sometimes  they  refused  to  hear  him.  Some 
cried,  Speak  !  others,  Do  not  speak  !  If  the  orator 
was  able  to  triumph  over  the  tumult,  he  did  not  con¬ 
quer  their  rebellious  dispositions.  In  such  a  case  he 
hastened  his  speech,  he  knew  that  they  were  impatient 
to  get^rid  of  him. 

i)^5emosthenes’  rapidity  notably  appeared  in  his  ex¬ 
ordiums.  Aristotle  compares  the  exordium  to  the 
poet’s  prologue,  to  the  preludes  of  flute-players.  ATe 
could  further  compare  it  to  the  preparatory  move¬ 
ments  of  the  wrestler  when  he  wishes  to  make  his 
hands  and  arms  supple;*  but  with  this  difference,  that 
the  athlete  strikes  at  nothing,  while  the  exordium  is 
destined  at  once  to  reach  the  adversary.  The  exor¬ 
dium  is  especially  necessary  to  the  advocate  who  sup¬ 
ports,  or  appears  to  support,  a  bad  cause.  “It  is  more 
advantageous  to  him  to  stop  at  every  digression  than 
to  come  to  his  own  affair.  Thus  slaves  never  gnswer 
directly  when  questioned;  they  use  circumlocutions  and 
preambles.  The  deliberative  exordium  is  generally 

*  Such  is  the  prelude  of  Dares,  the  pugilist.  ( Æneid ,  v,  375.) 

f  Aristotle,  Rhetoric ,  iii,  14. 


172  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


short,  sometimes  useless.  Everybody  knows  the  subject 
under  consideration;  the  exordium,  then,  has  no  other 
object  than  to  awaken  the  attention  of  the  hearers  to 
the  importance  of  the  debate,  and  to  inspire  them  with 
dispositions  favorable  to  the  person  or  to  the  orator’s 
thesis.  Demosthenes  and  his  principles  were  suffi¬ 
ciently  well  known  to  the  Athenians;  he  had  only  to 
use  before  them  the  common  resources  of  the  bar. 
Two  statements  were  sufficient  for  him:  “Judges, 
before  all  things,  the  thought  that  the  abrogation  of 
the  law  (of  Leptines)  is  useful  to  the  commonwealth, 
and,  secondly,  the  interest  of  Chabrias’  son,  have 
made  me  consent  to  support  these  citizens  with  all 
npy  power.” 

Iiis  peroration  was  likewise  remarkably  simple.  It 
was  the  formula  familiar  to  the  Athenians:  “I  see 
nothing  more  to  say,  and  all  my  words  have,  I  be¬ 
lieve,  been  comprehended  (  Contra  Leptinern)  ”  \  or  a 
rapid  review  of  the  arguments  developed.  At  the  con¬ 
clusion  of  the  oration  all  is  clear;  the  sentiment  de¬ 
sired  by  the  orator  is  inspired  then  or  never.  Many 
an  orator  prepares  his  peroration  immediately  after 
his  exordium:  he  fears  that  breath  will  fail  him  at  the 
end.  Demosthenes  did  not  fear  these  swoons;  he 
felt  strong  and  sure  of  himself;  he  had  no  weak  troops 
adorned  and  surrounded  by  chosen  soldiers;  in  him 
all  was  solid  and  ardent.  An  intense  heat  animated 
his  harangues  from  beginning  to  end:  his  life,  his 
soul,  circulated  in  them  from  the  first  word  to  the  last: 
spiritus  intus  alit.  *  *  *  What  good  is  it  to  adjust 
a  peroration  carefully  prepared  to  a  discourse  which 
is  all  peroration  ?  The  orator  concludes  with  some 
grave  and  simple  words,  without  using  pathetic  ges¬ 
tures  or  oratorical  efforts;  he  descends  from  the  ros- 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


173 


trum  with  the  same  step  and  with  the  same  air  as  he 
mounted  it.* 

Demosthenes  had  little  success  in  improvisation; 
but  when  he  was  compelled  to  speak  impromptu,  he 
did  it  with  an  energy  superior  to  that  of  his  written 
orations.  This  compulsion  to  do  himself  injustice  by 
departing  from  his  natural  course,  imprinted  upon  his 
mind  an  agitation  the  result  of  which  was  remarkably 
vigorous  language.  Then,  without  doubt,  escaped 
from  him  those  bold  terms  or  images  with  which 
Æscliines  reproaches  liim.f  Not  endowed  with  the 
gift  of  easy  productions,  he  also  failed  in  the  indiscreet 
vivacity  of  his  imagination  and  his  thoughts.  In 
his  orations  he  sometimes  appeared  to  he  transported, 
by  a  divine  inspiration.  Ilis  nature  was  irascible  and 
violent;  sometimes  he  inclined  to  wrangling  and  to 
the  abuse  of  subtile  reasoning.  At  all  times  he  had 
to  govern  himself  and  to  undergo  a  severe  preparation. 
Improvisation  would  have  given  him  loose  reins; 
the  pen  restrained  him.  Thus  calmed  and  chastised, 
he  was  not  only  protected  from  the  railleries  of  comic 
poets,  but  incomparable  in  point  of  beauty.  He  was 
unexpectedly  called  upon  to  mount  the  rostrum:  “I 
am  not  prepared,”  was  his  excuse.  He  knew  the 
exigencies  of  an  artistic  people,  whose  delicacy  had 
more  than  once  chagrined  his  début.  He  judged  it 
prudent  to  meditate  and  to  write  his  harangues 

*  Modern  speakers,  in  general,  think  that  they  must  make  a  great 
effort  at  the  close.  Taste  among  the  ancients  was  different.  A  Pin¬ 
daric  Ode  of  Horace  (Lebrun  deemed  it  worthy  to  be  translated  by  his 
own  hand)  concludes  thus:  “The  young  calf  which  is  to  liquidate 
my  debt  has  a  white  spot  on  his  forehead,  the  rest  of  him  is  of  a  dun 
color  ”  (iv,  2).  Pindar  finishes  the  Fourth  Olympic  thus  :  “  Even  young 
men’s  hair  often  turns  white  before  their  age  warrants  it.” 

f  Against  Gtesiphon ,  §  166. 


174 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


thoughtfully,  in  order  to  satisfy  the  people  and  to 
justify  himself  if  malignity  should  compel  him  to 
defend  himself,  as  in  the  Oratio  in  Midiam ,  against 
the  assaults  of  Athenians,  who  were  the  first  to  profit 
by  his  admonition. 

Demosthenes’  imagination  was  more  vigorous  than 
prompt.  With  all  that,  he  was  timid.  A  vigorous 
exercise  had  rendered  his  voice  sufficiently  powerful 
to  triumph  over  the  roar  of  the  waves.  It  was,  per¬ 
haps,  always  difficult  for  him  to  overcome  the  emotion 
which  the  storms  of  the  popular  assembly  aroused  in 
him.  It  was,  no  doubt,  to  the  preoccupation  of  an 
orator  who  was  easily  disconcerted  and  obliged  to  en¬ 
trust  his  strong  reflections  to  an  attentive  memory  that 
Demosthenes  owed  the  meditative  and  anxious  attitude 
ridiculed  by  ÆscliinesA*  An  easy  and  spontaneous 
eloquence  would  have  given  him  more  freedom  and 
abandonment.  It  would  have  doubled  his  powers. 
Sudden  inspiration  is  one  of  the  most  powerful  instru¬ 
ments  of  speech,  and  the  source  of  irresistible  effects. 
If  living  words  affect  us  more  than  reading,  what  ad¬ 
vantages  instantaneous  eloquence  has  over  the  pre¬ 
meditated  oration  ?  In  place  of  being  reduced  to 
silence  by  an  unworthy  adversary,  it  is  always  ready 
for  his  orders,  never  at  his  mercy.  It  follows  him 
over  his  own  ground.  Against  his  prepared  sentences 
it  offers  arguments  which  spring  from  a  sudden  con¬ 
ception,  and  which  are  in  the  highest  degree  marked 
by  the  expressive  beauty  of  living  nature.  The  spec- 

*  On  the  rostrum,  before  speaking  “  lie  rubbed  his  forehead  ”  ;  he 
assumed  “  the  attitude  of  a  charlatan  who  meant  to  impose  on  his 
hearers”;  that  is  to  say,  his  attitude  was  grave  and  collected.  (Æs- 
cliines,  Embassy ,  §  49.)  “  When  he  composed  he  held  his  pen  in  his 
mouth  and  bit  it.”  (Plutarch,  Life  of  Demosthenes,  29.) 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


175 


tator  who  sees  them  born  assists  the  creative  act  of 
the  genius;  he  admires  it,  and  this  admiration  disposes 
him  to  be  easily  persuaded.  A  penetrating  glance 
from  a  calm  orator  confounds  and  chastises  an  inter¬ 
rupter.  A  fortunate  rally  can  reestablish  a  battle  that 
has  been  almost  lost.  What  does  it  profit  to  be  right 
if  we  cannot  prove  it  at  once,  when  the  refutation  must, 
without  delay,  destroy  the  effect  of  an  adversary’s  ora¬ 
tion  ?  Without  improvisation,  the  orator  in  the  heat 
of  the  contest  is  disarmed  as  soon  as  he  has  spent  the 
arrows  brought  from  his  shop.  Improvisation  assures 
him  of  a  supply  that  is  ever  new.  See  how  Cicero,  by 
an  extemporaneous  outburst,  dismayed  Clodius  in  that 
passionate  altercation  before  the  senate,  a  graphic  de¬ 
scription  of  which  is  found  in  one  of  his  letters  {Ad 
Atticum ,  i,  16).  An  extemporaneous  debate  is  a  duel 
in  which  the  attack  and  reply  cross  each  other  with 
the  rapidity  of  two  swords.  Victory  is  sometimes  the 
reward  of  the  most  agile  dexterity. 

To  be  wanting  in  improvisation  is  therefore  a  grave 
defect  in  a  statesman,  especially  at  Athens,  where  the 
citizens  of  the  Pnyx,  daily  occupied  in  the  current  of 
public  affairs,  represented  a  permanent  parliament. 
The  eloquent  ministers  of  the  state  were  also  called 
upon  to  act  as  her  ambassadors.  Now,  what  are  we 
to  think  of  an  Athenian  deputy  who  is  deficient  in 
oratory  ?  Demosthenes  must  have  suffered  cruelly  be¬ 
fore  Philip  for  having  failed  in  prompt  eloquence,  on 
which  his  contemporary  orators  prided  themselves. 
Python  of  Byzantium  flattered  himself  on  his  ability 
to  write,  but  he  also  knew  how  to  improvise.  De- 
mades  had  a  prompt  conception  and  ready  language. 
In  his  extemporaneous  speeches  he  often  completely 
reversed  all  the  arguments  which  Demosthenes  had 


176 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


carefully  studied  and  premeditated.  Sometimes  also, 
when  he  saw  Demosthenes  troubled,  he  came  to  his 
assistance  and  aided  him  in  regaining  control  of  his 
audience.  What  are  we  to  say  of  -Æschines,  whose 
eloquence,  according  to  his  rival’s  testimony,  flowed 
abundantly,  like  the  rolling  waves  of  a  torrent  ?  De¬ 
mosthenes  must  have  been  touched  by  his  own  in¬ 
feriority  in  this  respect.  Modern  orators  are  more 
felicitous.  Words  have  wings  and  fly  away;  writings 
remain.  Without  mentioning  Cimon,  Themistocles, 
Phocion,  and  Pericles,  who  have  left  us  nothing  of 
their  eloquence,  how  little  of  Demades’  brilliant  im¬ 
provisations  remains  to  us,  and  what  a  great  damage 
has  Æscliines,  our  orator’s  rival,  inflicted  on  Greek 
letters  by  transmitting  so  little  of  his  fertility  !  The 
Three  Graces ,*  due  to  Æschines’  chisel,  increase  our 
regret  for  having  been  deprived  of  such  masterpieces 
which  were  born  from  day  to  day  of  inspired  but  fra¬ 
gile  designs. 

Plutarch,  in  his  comparison  of  Demosthenes  and 
Cicero,  does  not  admire  the  habit  of  continually  exer¬ 
cising  the  talent  of  “haranguing  and  pettifogging. ” 
Athens  was  not  wanting  in  fertile  speakers,  always 
disposed  to  improvise  an  opinion.  Demosthenes  pre¬ 
ferred  to  polish  the  expression  of  his  thought  as  he 
matured  his  deliberations.  Thus  he  did  not  fear  repe¬ 
titions.  When  a  period,  a  comparison  or  an  entire 
development,  thoughtfully  elaborated,  appeared  to  him 
as  near  as  possible  to  the  desired  ideal,  and  worthy  of 
being  peremptorily  preserved,  he  had  no  scruples  to 
use  it  again  and  again.  He  wished  to  submit  the 
Athenians  to  the  control  of  his  speech,  and  to  direct 

*  The  ancient  critics  thus  designated  Æschines’  works  :  Against 
T imarchus ;  Oration  on  the  Embassy ;  Against  Ctesiphon. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


177 


their  attention  to  the  public  good;  whence  his  perse¬ 
verance  in  repeating  until  he  accomplished  his  object. 
Socrates*  excused  himself  for  always  saying  the  same 
thing  upon  the  same  subject  to  the  sophists,  thinkers 
who  were  very  changeable.  Demosthenes  concen¬ 
trated  his  attacks  upon  the  same  weak  points  of  the 
Athenians.  Perhaps  they  are  wounded  by  these  repe¬ 
titions.  To  whom  do  they  attribute  them  ?  Are  they 
not  the  first  authors?  “Change  your  conduct,  and  I 
will  change  my  language.” 

True  and  noble  thoughts,  when  once  in  a  mould 
worthy  of  them,  are  always  pleasant  to  hear.  If  they 
are  applicable  to  the  subject,  it  is  unnecessary  to 
search  for  their  origin  and  the  date  of  their  birth. 
Within  an  interval  of  two  years  (355-353),  at  the  close 
of  his  oration  Against  Timocrates ,  Demosthenes  re¬ 
produced  an  invective  which  had  already  been  directed 
against  Androtion.  He  did  not  pretend  to  dissimulate 
the  repetition,  but  he  announced  it  in  such  a  manner 
that  it  was  pardoned:  “I  have  already  had  occasion  to 
pronounce  the  words  which  I  am  about  to  say  to  you; 
but  only  those  of  you  heard  them  who  assisted  in 
the  debates  provoked  by  Euctemon.”  The  tribunals 
changed  judges  every  year.  The  audience  was  almost 
entirely  renewed.  The  orator  thought  it  unnecessary 
to  renew  himself.  Elsewhere,  Demosthenes  alleged 
that  he  returned  to  facts  already  mentioned,  and  in  the 
same  terms,  for  the  instruction  of  young  classes  who  had 
been  neither  witnesses  nor  hearers.  Theophrastus’ 
great  talker  (fiâAoç)  “recounted  what  applause  one  of 

*  The  Pierrot  of  the  Festin  de  Pierre  is  Socratic  on  this  point.  To 
Charlotte  :  “  I  always  tell  you  the  same  thing  because  it  is  always  the 
same  thing;  and  if  it  were  not  always  the  same  thing,  I  would  not 
always  tell  you  the  same  thing.” 


178 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


his  orations  received  which  he  delivered  in  public,  and 
he  repeated  a  great  part  of  it.”  The  author  of  the 
oration  On  the  Crown  sometimes  resisted  this  tempta¬ 
tion,  which  had  such  influence  on  the  Greek  mind. 
He  said  he  feared  that  “such  retrospective  eloquence 
would  fatigue  the  judges  in  vain.”  When  he  was 
assured  of  escaping  this  danger  he  was  less  scrupulous. 
He  drew  before  the  eyes  of  the  Messenians  “dazzling 
examples  ”  of  Philip’s  perfidy.  He  considered  it  useful 
to  repeat  them  before  the  Athenians,  and  he  repeated 
his  little  address  whose  “judicious  truth”  had  (he 
himself  takes  care  to  inform  us)  excited  the  “roaring 
acclamations”  of  the  Messenians.*  The  Athenians 
saw,  if  they  did  not  all  feel  like  Demosthenes,  .the 
alarms  at  the  news  of  the  capture  of  Elatea.  Ctesi- 
phon’s  defender  did  not  omit  to  picture  it  before  their 
eyes.  This  picture  was  not  merely,  under  the  orator’s 
pen,  an  illustrious  testimony  of  his  courageous  devo¬ 
tion.  He  found  another  opportunity  to  charm  the 
people  with  the  refreshing  remembrance  of  his  incom¬ 
parable  eloquence.  “On  that  day,  then,  I  was  the 
man  who  stood  forth.  And  the  counsels  I  then  pro¬ 
posed  may  now  merit  your  attention  on  a  double 
account:  first,  to  convince  you  that  of  all  your  leaders 
and  ministers  I  was  the  only  one  who  maintained  the 
part  of  a  zealous  patriot  in  your  extremity,  whose 
words  and  actions  were  devoted  to  your  service  in  the 
midst  of  public  consternation;  and  secondly,  to  enable 
you  to  judge  more  clearly  of  my  other  actions,  by 
granting  a  little  time  to  this.”;);  Demosthenes  omitted 

*  In  tlie  Embassy  Æscliines  reproduced,  in  substance,  an  oration 
already  pronounced  by  him  before  Philip,  and  repeated  previously  in 
the  assembly  of  the  people.  It  was  therefore  delivered  three  times. 

f  Pro  Corona ,  §  173. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  OR  ATOR.  179 

a  third  reason;  it  is  that  he  derived  as  much  pleasure 
from  repeating  his  orations  as  did  his  fellow-citizens 
from  hearing  them.  Homer  never  fails  to  repeat  ver¬ 
batim  the  messages  or  the  speeches  of  his  characters. 
It  is  his  advantage, —  his  naïve  simplicity.  The  Attic 
orators  followed  this  example  in  order  to  please  their 
hearêrs  and  themselves,  and  did  it  with  artistic  scru¬ 
ples.  It  was  well;  let  us  imitate  it.  The  better  is 
sometimes  an  enemy  of  the  good.  It  is  thus  with  our 
virtuosi.  If  they  excel  in  certain  pursuits,  in  which 
their  talent  has  full  scope,  they  continue  the  same  pur¬ 
suits,  and  will  compel  the  world  to  admire  their  execu¬ 
tion.  Il  nous  faut  du  nouveau ,  n'en  fut-il  plus  au 
monde. 

On  this  point  the  French  are  more  Athenian  than 
the  Athenians  themselves.  The  Greeks  love  novelty 
(Aristophanes  did  not  forget  to  entertain  them  with 
new  inventions),  but  the  beautiful  allured  them  still 
more;  though  it  might  be  repeated  many  times.  It 
was  never  unacceptable  to  them.  Thus  they  allowed 
no  one  to  practice  originality  with  impunity.  It  would 
have  been  even  dangerous,  especially  for  an  accused 
man,  to  do  it  with  éclat.  u  Now  if  I  ask  you  to  listen 
to  an  oration  quite  different  from  those  habitually 
delivered  before  you,  you  will  not  be  angry  with  me, 
but  pardon  me,  reflecting  that  the  particular  nature  of 
the  attacks  against  me  renders  these  explanations  of  a 
new  kind  necessary.  *  *  *  I  hesitate  to  speak,  for  I 
have  such  new  and  strange  opinions  to  expose  to  the 
consideration  of  you  all  that  I  fear  you  will,  at  my  first 
words,  fill  the  tribunal  with  your  murmurs  and  cries. 
*  *  *  I  beseech  you,  however,  not  to  become  prepos¬ 
sessed  with  the  idea  that  I  would  have  been  so  foolish, 
when  I  am  under  an  accusation,  as  to  choose  a  method 


180  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

of  defense  which  contradicts  your  opinions,  if  I  did 
not  think  that  this  part  of  my  oration  accorded  with 
that  which  precedes.”* 

Sometimes  the  Athenian  orators  took  care  to  remark 
that  their  sentiments  were  those  of  their  hearers.  Like 
Aristogiton’s  accuser,  they  defended  themselves  from 
being  original.  “I  will  say  nothing  new,  nothing 
original,  nothing  particularly  remarkable  (-spir 
Superiority  was  the  danger  to  avoid.  Pericles  dissimu¬ 
lated  his.  “I  will  endeavor,  in  accordance  with  the 
law,  to  meet  the  desires  and  sentiments  of  each  one  of 
you  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  ”f  He  was  satisfied  with 
the  honor  of  being  in  harmony  with  the  city,  and  of 
being  alone  the  interpreter  of  all.  Thus  the  speakers 
considered  the  susceptibility  of  hearers  who  would  be 
insulted  by  an  elevation  and  richness  of  thought  by 
which  they  might,  perhaps,  feel  humiliated.  The  people 
desire  that  the  man  be  one  of  their  number,  and  like 
them.  Hero  became  the  idol  of  the  plebeians  by  publicly 
sharing  their  tastes.  The  literati  of  Pome  denied  the 
appellation  of  learned,  and  shared  the  popular  preju¬ 
dices  against  the  Greeks.  Aristides  the  Just  was  ex¬ 
iled.  Athens  would  have  tolerated  him  if  he  had 
merely  merited  the  qualification  of  moderate  citizen 
( uirpux; ).  Under  Caligula  and  Domitian,  probity  was 
an  offense  to  the  emperor.  The  Athenian  people 
were  tyrannical;  their  jealous  temper  imposed  equality 
imperiously  and  in  all  respects;  all  eminent  merit, 
even  in  eloquence,  made  them  distrustful. 

It  is  therefore  not  astonishing  that  the  Athenian  ora¬ 
tors  aspired  to  originality  only  indifferently.  They 
cared  little  for  it;  they  did  not  fear  to  resemble  their 


*  Isocrates,  Antidosis. 


f  Funeral  Oration .  ii,  35,  fin.,  45. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


181 


rivals,  to  copy  tliem  as  they  copied  themselves.*  In¬ 
novation  in  thought  stimulated  them  less  to  emulation 
than  elegance  of  expression.  Isocrates’  testimony  is 
significant  in  this  respect. 

“  Past  events  are  a  common  domain,  open  to  every  man. 
To  make  use  of  them  tidy,  to  draw  from  them  suitable  reflec¬ 
tions,  to  enliven  them  with  charms  of  expression,  is  the  office  of 
the  skillful.  The  surest  means,  in  my  opinion,  to  promote  all 
the  arts,  and  the  superior  art  of  speech,  would  be  to  honor  and 
to  admire,  not  those  who  first  grappled  with  a  subject,  but 
those  who  brought  it  to  perfection  ;  not  the  author  anxious  to 
speak  of  things  which  have  not  been  touched  upon  before  him, 
but  the  talent  capable  of  treating  a  known  subject  in  a  man¬ 
ner  that  cannot  be  equaled.”! 

II.  Perfection  of  form  in  language,  as  in  all  other 
things,  was  the  desired  aim  of  the  Greek  artist.  Now 
perfection  is  rarely  improvised.  £  Pascal  tells  us  that 
we  should  not  fear  to  repeat  the  proper  word  when 
we  have  found  it.  Our  pulpit  orators  have  extended 
this  principle  to  entire  pages,  when  careful  reviewing 
brought  them  to  the  highest  degree  of  beauty  possible 
to  reach. 

Fénelon,  in  his  third  Dialogue  on  Eloquence ,  de- 

*  Demosthenes  and  Isæus  established  the  utility  of  the  torture  in 
the  same  terms.  “  Having  to  express  the  same  thoughts,  I  do  not 
think  that  I  ought  to  trouble  myself  to  express  in  another  manner 
what  has  been  presented  felicitously.  *  *  *  I  would  be  unreasona¬ 
ble  if,  seeing  others  protit  by  what  belongs  to  me,  I  was  the  only  one 
who  did  not  dare  to  use  what  I  myself  composed.  Isocrates  ( Letter  to 
Philip). 

t  Panegyric  on  Athens ,  §  9. 

X  Sometimes  a  sudden  inspiration  creates  at  once  a  perfect  master¬ 
piece  (ef.  Plato’s  Ion).  Thus  from  patriotic  feeling  was  born,  with  a 
perfect  harmony  of  words  and  song,  the  finished  hymn  of  Rouget  de 
l'Isle  ;  but  these  etfusions  are  the  exception. 


182 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


mands  that  the  preacher  shall  speak  with  effusion, 
and  230iir  his  soul  out  in  a  touching  and  familiar  ser¬ 
mon.  These  pastoral  exhortations  are  capable  of 
powerful  effects,  but  they  also  have  their  dangers:  it 
is  dangerous  to  improvise  at  the  foot  of  the  altar. 
Bossuet’ s  method  is  safer:  Bossuet  revised  his  ser¬ 
mons  without  recoiling  before  patient  erasures.  What 
Bossuet,  Bourdaloue  and  Massillon  did  in  the  Christian 
pulpit,  which  is  devoted  to  the  saving  of  souls,  the 
political  orators  of  Athens  could  not  refuse  to  their 
love  of  art  and  of  the  state.  It  was  not,  however, 
without  sometimes  exposing  themselves  to  criticism. 
Demosthenes  thought  that  he  ought  to  exculpate  him¬ 
self  for  having  written  the  Oratio  in  Midi  am  before 
appearing  at  the  tribunal.  Tie  said  that  he  had  pre¬ 
pared  a  bill  against  the  opposing  party,  ai  rich  collec¬ 
tion  of  the  crimes  and  insolences  of  the  criminal.  He 
offered  to  give  the  judges  a  lecture  on  it.  Nothing 
was  more  natural,  in  the  eyes  of  the  lieliasts,  than  to 
see  an  accuser  carefully  draw  up  and  magnify  his 
brief  against  his  adversary:  this  was  the  right  of  an 
enemy.  Condemnation  was  passed  on  the  memoirs, 
but  not  on  the  perfect  beauties  of  the  speech  itself; 
for  the  speech  was  a  snare  to  captivate  the  artistic 
sensibility  of  the  hearers:  u  Perhaps  Midias  will  add 
that  I  have  studied  and  prepared  all  that  I  am  now 
saying.  Yes,  Athenians,  I  have  studied  it;  why  should 
I  deny  it  ?  I  have  weighed  it  with  all  the  care  im¬ 
aginable.  In  fact,  I  would  be  foolish  if,  after  the  out¬ 
rages  which  I  have  received  and  am  still  receiving, 
I  had  neglected  the  accusation  which  I  am  about  to 
present  to  you.  As  to  my  oration,  Midias  himself 
wrote  it;  for  the  author  of  a  bill  of  accusations  is 
really  that  man  whose  actions  have  furnished  the  sub- 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


183 


ject,  not  that  one  who  has  taken  care  to  elaborate 
the  arguments  which,  by  my  right  as  a  citizen,  I  lay 
before  you  to-day.  Such  is  my  custom,  Athenians: 
I  agree  with  Midias.  But  he,  undoubtedly,  has  never 
made  a  wise  reflection  in  all  his  life.  For  if  he  had 
only  reflected  a  little,  he  would  not  have  acted  with 
such  extravagance.” 

Isocrates,  a  professional  writer,  also  apologized  to 
the  people,  but  in  a  different  tone.  He  declared  to 
the  admirers  of  familiar  orations  that  he  knew  as  well 
as  any  one  the  merit  of  simplicity.  Master  of  all 
the  resources  of  his  art,  he  could  be  brilliant  and 
simple  at  his  will.  The  severity  of  these  austere 
writers  betrayed  them:  they  reserved  their  eulogies 
for  works  whose  weakness  could  not  discourage  them. 
Thus  the  author  of  the  Panegyric  was  neither  sur¬ 
prised  nor  intimidated  by  their  disdain  for  his  fine 
diction.  Orontes  asked  indulgence  in  favor  of  his 
sonnet:  he  had  so  little  time  to  write  it.  Isocrates, 
more  sincere,  made  this  candid  confession  to  the  de¬ 
tractors  of  finished  orations:  “Most  orators,  in  their 
exordiums,  assuage  their  audience  in  advance;  they 
prelude  by  pretexts  to  the  oration  which  they  are 
about  to  deliver.  Some  allege  the  little  leisure  given 
them  to  prepare  themselves;  others  the  difficulty  ot 
finding  expressions  equal  to  the  grandeur  of  the  sub¬ 
ject.  As  for  me,  if  I  do  not  speak  in  a  manner  worthy 
of  the  subject,  of  my  reputation,  of  the  time  devoted 
to  the  composition  of  this  oration,  (nearly  ten  years, 
the  duration  of  the  siege  of  Troy!)  and  finally  of  the 
long  experience  of  my  whole  life,  I  do  not  ask  any 
forgiveness;  I  consent  to  ridicule  and  contempt.”* 
Renown  and  length  of  time  compelled  him  to  submit 


*  Panegyric ,  §§11  and  14. 


184 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


All  written  orations,  however,  owe  to  the  reader 
qualities  which  the  harangues  that  are  horn  of  daily- 
disputes  in  the  forum  do  not  possess.  “A  written 
oration  derives  its  merit  from  expressions  rather  than 
the  thought  it  contains.”  *  If  the  author  wished  to 
polish  it  with  his  pen,  it  was  apparently  in  the  hope 
that  it  would  be  admired  by  posterity.  How,  how 
can  he  be  assured  that  it  will  reach  its  destination,  if 
not  by  the  imperishable  and  inalienable  beauty  of 
diction?  “Well  written  works,”  says  Buffon,  “will 
be  the  only  works  that  will  pass  to  posterity.”  Modern 
law  protects  literary  property;  the  genius  of  the  writer 
will  protect  it  as  surely.  Bossuet  and  Demosthenes 
are  less  “  liable  to  be  robbed  ”  than  Harpagon. 

To  the  reasons  which  Demosthenes  alleges  to  justify 
the  artistic  work  done  in  the  introduction  of  the  Ora- 
tio  in  Midiam ,  we  can  add  one  relative  to  the  fitness 
of  revising  it  after  delivery:  “Written  orations  ap¬ 
pear  meagre  when  delivered  in  public.  The  finest 
harangues  at  the  bar  seem  ordinary  when  they  are 
read  in  print.  It  is  because  they  are  made  for  action, 
and  if  they  are  not  used  for  action  they  no  longer 
produce  their  effect,  but  appear  insipid.” f 

Action  was  their  dominant  virtue  ( ÔTtoxptTtxioTdTT] 
and  that  was  precisely  the  power  of  which  they  were 
deprived.  As  soon  as  they  were  written  they  needed 
the  essential  merit  of  written  orations,  which  was  a 
scrupulous  perfection  of  style.  Thus  Demosthenes’ 
harangues,  so  powerful  by  action,  were  weakened  when 
transferred  from  the  tumultuous  tribune  to  paper. 
They  were  like  a  statue  with  dim  eyes,  substituted 
for  the  living  ‘athlete.  They  would  never  seem  lan¬ 
guid  and  cold,  even  without  the  revisions;  and  yet, 

*  Aristotle,  Rhetoric,  iii,  1.  f  Aristotle,  Rhetoric ,  iii,  12. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


185 


notwithstanding  their  innate  vigor,  they  must  neces¬ 
sarily  gain  by  being  reviewed  before  reading.  In  the 
cabinet  the  writer  reanimates  his  work  with  a  new 
life;  with  purity  of  language,  with  perfection  of  de¬ 
sign,  with  the  coloring  of  pencil,  he  unites  at  his 
leisure  pathetic  energy  and  the  beauty  of  expression; 
finally,  he  uses  all  the  secrets  of  his  art  capable  of 
making  the  marble  breathe,  and  of  giving,  by  force  of 
illusion,  the  wTarmth  of  life  and  action  to  the  motion¬ 
less  canvas. 

As  to  the  proofs  of  revision,  they  are  numerous  in 
the  orations  of  Demosthenes  and  his  contenrporaries. 
Thus  we  do  not  find  to-day,  in  the  oration  On  the  Em¬ 
bassy. ,  several  expressions  or  traits  criticised  by  Æsclii- 
nes.  Demosthenes  profited  by  his  enemy’s  criticisms; 
he  suppressed  them  as  soon  as  he  made  his  final  revis¬ 
ion.  The  harangues  of  the  two  rivals  contain  many 
passages  as  follows:  “I  learn  that  my  adversary  will 
excuse  himself  in  this  manner.  *  *  *  ITe  will,  I  know, 
offer  this  objection.  *  *  *  He  will  give  me  this  reply. 
When  he  will  say  to  you,  *  *  *  do  not  listen  to  him; 
if  he  insists,  answer  him,”  or  other  analagous  formulas. 
Evidently  the  speeches  in  which  these  anticipations  are 
met  have  not  reached  us  in  their  primitive  form.  Per¬ 
haps  in  civil  cases  the  logographers  were  so  unfaithful  as 
to  mutually  communicate  their  arguments, —  the  client 
was  the  only  one  to  suffer;  but  in  political  and  passion¬ 
ate  debates  this  supposition  is  inadmissible.  Hever  did 
Æschines  and  Demosthenes  extend  their  disinterested 
love  of  art  to  such  a  degree  that  they  refrained  from 
dealing  the  blows  which  their  hatred  demanded.  These 
literary  preoccupations  do  not  agree  with  the  eulogy  of 
Fénelon,  which  we  have  referred  to.  In  Demosthenes 
“  not  one  word  is  for  the  orator.  ”  *  *  *  Pytheas  re- 

8* 


186 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


proaclied  this  same  Demosthenes  for  bestowing  so  much 
labor  on  his  orations  that  they  smelt  of  the  lamp;  Æs- 
cliines,  for  using  expressions  that  were  polished  to  ex¬ 
cess  ( -zf)Lipyotq ).  Like  Thucydides,  according  to  the  re¬ 
mark  of  Dionysius  of  blalicarnassus,  Demosthenes  pre¬ 
ferred  a  studied  diction  to  ordinary  and  natural  lan¬ 
guage,  aiming  at  originality  of  attitude  and  relief.  How 
can  we  harmonize  this  apparent  contradiction  ?  It  is 
true  Demosthenes  did  not  pursue  the  beauty  of  diction 
to  aggrandize  himself;  he  disregarded  himself  and 
looked  only  to  his  country’s  interests;  but  even  his 
country’s  safety  made  him  an  excellent  artist.  “Demos¬ 
thenes  did  not  strive  after  the  beautiful  ;  he  created  it 
without  thinking  of  it.  He  used  language  as  a  modest 
man  uses  his  coat,  to  cover  him.”  With  all  due  defer¬ 
ence  to  the  author  of  The  Letter  to  The  Academy , 
Fénelon,  Demosthenes  aimed  not  only  to  dress  his 
thoughts  decently,  but  to  present  them  under  a  costume 
which  attracted  the  eyes  of  those  who  admired  the  ex¬ 
quisite  perfections  of  form  everywhere.  Demosthenes 
did  strive  for  the  beautiful,  and  thought  of  it  constantly, 
but  he  knew  how  to  realize  it  with  an  imperceptible 
art;  *  he  assiduously  studied  his  eloquence,  but  this 
study  never  in  the  least  deprived  him  of  his  nature  and 
his  disinterested  sincerity. 

The  orator,  even  after  his  studious  labors  by  the 
lamp,  could  always  apply  to  his  political  harangues  the 
words  which  close  the  Fourth  Philippic:  “Such  is  tie 
truth,  Athenians,  told  in  all  frankness,  with  simplicity 
and  devotion.  I  know  nothing  better  to  say.”  He 
might  have  added,  if  he  had  Isocrates’  disposition,  I 
could  not  say  it  in  better  terms,  nor  with  a  more  per¬ 
suasive  talent.  Demosthenes  was  precise  and  rapid 

* AavOavcov  7 :oUc.  (Aristotle,  Itheloric ,  iii,  1G.) 


DEMOSTHENES  — THE  ORATOR.  187 

in  liis  thoughts,  measured  in  his  vigor,  warm  and  sober 
in  his  style;  in  a  word,  he  was  a  perfect  Attic.  The 
audience  made  the  orator.  The  Areopagus  acquitted  a 
courtesan  who  was  accused  of  impiety  because  she 
was  beautiful.  The  Athenian  people  likewise  were  in¬ 
dulgent  toward  TEschines,  the  friend  of  Philip,  because 
he  was  eloquent  and  handsome.  In  order  to  be  master 
of  such  a  city,  and  to  exercise  Pericles’  undisputed  as¬ 
cendency  over  it,  Demosthenes  had  to  derive  his  power 
from  the  union  of  the  practical  eloquence  of  former 
ages  with  the  polished  eloquence  which  his  contempo¬ 
raries  exacted.  Ilis  attainments  had  to  be  such  that  it 
would  be  said  of  him,  “The  Graces  reposed  on  his  lips; 
when  he  opposed  the  will  of  the  Athenians,  when  his 
voice,  animated  by  his  country’s  interests,  assumed  the 
severe  tone  of  reprimand,  it  had  to  render  agreeable  and 
popular  the  censures  which  it  hurled  at  men  who  en¬ 
joyed  the  favor  of  the  people.”*  If  Demosthenes  as 
an  orator  of  the  state  had  to  be  artistic  on  the  rostrum, 
he  certainly  should  have  the  privilege  of  being  artistic 
when  writing  his  orations  in  his  cabinet.  There  he  no 
longer  addressed  the  men  of  Athens;  he  pleaded  in  a 
manner  his  cause  before  posterity.  He  meant  to  sub¬ 
jugate  us  also  by  his  sound  reasoning,  his  elevated  senti¬ 
ments,  and  his  perfect  language.  If  he  has  treated  us  as 
Athenians,  let  us  not  complain  of  it. 

We  have  praised  Demosthenes’  brevity  and  his  dis¬ 
dain  for  all  that  was  merely  ornamental.  This  eulogy 
applies  without  restriction  to  the  Philippics  and  to 
the  harangues,  which  are  exclusively  political  and  full 
of  action.  His  other  orations  sometimes  contain  speci¬ 
mens  of  pure  charms,  which  alone  afford  us  pleasure 
in  reading  them,  and  dissuade  us  from  pronouncing 


*  De  Oralore,  iii,  34. 


138 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


them  tedious  works.  Papyrus  is  patient;  the  Athe¬ 
nian  judge  who  did  not  share  with  Philocleon  the 
Aristophanic  privilege  of  eating  his  soup  before  the 
audience  was,  perhaps,  not  always  so  patient,  and  yet 
the  Greek  mind  was  generally  indulgent  toward  ora¬ 
tions  delivered  for  the  sole  object  of  pleasing.  Trag¬ 
edy  sometimes  permitted  them.  Such  were  the  long 
geographical  sketches  in  Æschylus’  Prometheus  and  the 
detailed  description  of  the  Pythian  games  in  Sopho¬ 
cles’  Elecira ,  a  picture  sufficiently  interesting,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  taste  of  the  Athenians,  to  make  them 
pardon  an  anachronism.  The  recital  of  Hippolytus’ 
death,  for  which  Fénelon  reproached  Pacine,  would 
certainly  have  found  mercy  before  the  Athenians. 
Even  in  civil  speeches,  where  the  clepsydra  measured 
the  time,  Attic  sobriety  was  not  always  averse  to 
agreeable  amplifications.  Demosthenes,  in  his  oration 
Against  Afecera ,  went  back  even  to  Theseus  in  order  to 
prove  citizenship  at  Athens  by  history, —  a  digression 
undoubtedly  well  received  by  the  audience,  but  not 
indispensable  to  the  debate.  The  speech  Against  Lac - 
•ritus  contains  an  enumeration  of  the  Athenian  tribu¬ 
nals  and  their  respective  attributes,  which  is  instruct¬ 
ive  to  us  but  useless  to  the  case.  Did  the  dicasts 
find  particular  pleasure  in  an  enumeration  of  the  com¬ 
plicated  cases  for  which  they  used  to  go  and  receive 
their  three  oboles?  We  are  tempted  to  believe  it 
when  we  see  Demosthenes  renovating  and  displaying 
his  judicial  knowledge  in  the  speech  Against  Andro- 
tion ,  and  Hyperides  adorning  the  exordium  of  his  ora¬ 
tion  For  EuxennipusA  Demosthenes’  speech  On  the 

*  Demosthenes  ( Against  Aristocrates)  opportunely  recalls  the  six 
criminal  procedures  disregarded  by  Aristocrates’  decree.  This  enu¬ 
meration,  remarkable  in  several  respects,  is  here  a  powerful  argu¬ 
ment. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


189 


Embassy  contains  two  splendid  digressions,  worthy  of 
the  orator’s  gravity,  hut  they  are  none  the  less  digres¬ 
sions  {purpureas  pannus).  The  first  is  the  descrip¬ 
tion  of  the  contagious  plague  which  destroyed  all 
Greece,  a  description  so  justly  admired  by  Pliny  the 
Younger;44  the  second  is  a  thrilling  recapitulation  of 
Philip’s  invasions, —  an  eloquent  page  of  political  his¬ 
tory,  but  foreign  to  the  demonstration  of  HCschines’ 
culpability. 

Aristotle  has  clearly  described  the  different  condi¬ 
tions  of  the  tribune  and  bar  in  this  respect:  u  Delibera¬ 
tive  oratory  does  not  admit  the  digressions  which  are 
received  at  the  bar,  where  the  orator  can  inveigh 
against  his  adversary,  speak  of  himself,  and  arouse  the 
people’s  passions.  Deliberative  oratory  opens  up  a 
field  to  malice  less  vast  than  judicial  oratory.  In 
fact,  deliberative  discussions  appeal  to  the  interests  of 
the  people.  Here  the  hearer  is  judge  in  his  own  cause, 
and  the  orator  ought  to  be  satisfied  with  showing  that 
what  he  supports  is  truly  such  as  he  describes  it  to  be. 
At  the  bar  this  is  not  sufficient.  It  is  very  useful  to 

t j 

engross  the  hearer’s  mind.  In  fact,  when  the  interests- 
of  another  are  at  stake,  the  judges  only  seek  their  own 
satisfaction,  listen  for  their  pleasure,  accord  all  to  the 
orator,  and  forget  their  duty  as  judges.  Thus  in  sev 
eral  places  the  law  forbade  the  orator  to  enter  upon 
digressions  which  were  foreign  to  the  subject.  But  in 
the  public  assemblies  those  who  deliberated  on  state 
affairs  greatly  observed  this  rule.”*)*  Those  speeches 
of  Demosthenes  which  are  both  political  and  judicial 
possess  qualities  natural  to  the  eloquence  of  the  trib¬ 
une  and  that  of  the  bar.  The  orator,  who  was  both  an 
advocate  and  counsellor  of  the  people,  here  gives  free 

*  Letters ,  ix,  26.  f  Rhetoric,  iii,  17,  i,  1. 


190 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


scope  to  liis  powers,  and  realizes,  by  virtue  of  the 
variety  of  his  means,  the  ideal  eloquence,  a  triumph 
which,  according  to  Cicero,  wras  reserved  for  judicial 
causes,  and  especially  for  works  in  which  the  two  kinds 
of  eloquence  united  their  resources  and  peculiar  beau¬ 
ties.* 

When  Demosthenes  revised  his  orations  he  sup¬ 
pressed  all  proofs,  the  letters,  treatises,  law-texts, 
decrees  or  projects  of  decrees,  and  testimonies.  Some 
of  these  documents,  which  were  very  often  necessary 
for  the  cause,  and  sometimes  almost  useless,  served  to 
give  the  orator  and  the  judges  relief.  “These  facts 
are  well  known  to  you,”  said  Lycias  in  the  speech 
Against  Eratosthenes ,  “and  I  do  not  see  the  necessity 
of  producing  witnesses.  However,  I  will  do  it;  for  I 
need  rest  myself,  and  several  among  you  will  be 
pleased  to  hear  as  much  testimony  as  possible  on  the 
same  subject.”  The  tribunal  was  not  only  refreshed, 
but  charmed,  wdien  the  testimonies  were  from  the 
poets,  such  as  Solon,  Homer,  Hesiod  and  Euripides. 
The  author  has  carefully  reproduced  these  testimonies, 
to  the  great  satisfaction  of  the  reader.  He  suppressed 
the  others.  The  latter  might  have  given  some  respite 
to  the  audience,  inasmuch  as  tliev  would  cause  a  short 
suspension  of  close  attention,  since  they  were  insipid. 

*  Demosthenes’  orations,  with  the  exception  of  his  speeches,  which 
are  purely  civil,  may  be  divided  into  three  classes:  First,  orations 
which  are  at  the  same  time  civil  and  political,  and  composed  for 
others  ( Against  Androtion ,  Timocrates ,  Aristocrates).  Here  the  orator 
does  not  speak  in  his  own  behalf,  and  does  not  appear  in  the  contest. 
Second,  orations  in  which  he  defends  his  own  interests,  and  which 
belong  both  to  the  deliberative  and  judicial  classes  (la  Midiam ,  Em¬ 
bassy,  Pro  Corona).  Third,  harangues  before  the  people,  in  which 
Demosthenes  exclusively  performed  political  work,  and  spoke  as  a 
responsible  counsellor. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  OKATOK. 


191 


Demosthenes  did  not  give  them  to  the  reader;  he  left 
them  in  the  echinos  (lawyer’s  satchel),  as  literary  rub¬ 
bish.'"  Many  of  the  official  pieces  transcribed  in  the 
oration  On  the  Crown  are  spurious.  One  orator  has 
preserved  some  of  them,  which  are  manifestly  authen¬ 
tic:  the  decree  of  the  Byzantians,  that  of  the  Clierso- 
nesians,  and  Demosthenes’  decree.  The  first  two, 
proofs  of  the  acknowledgment  of  the  people  whom 
Athens  had  saved  were  too  honorable  to  the  minister  of 
Athens  to  frustrate  his  apology.  The  third  is  a  pa* 
thetic  speech  delivered  before  the  Thebans  against 
Philip.  In  it  wTe  can  easily  trace  the  orator’s  hand 
and  soul.  Certain  civil  speeches  have  the  advantage 
over  political  harangues  of  not  being  deprived  of  their 
supplementary  proofs.  Thus  the  orations  Against 
Neœra  and  Against  Lacritus  have  come  down  to  us 
in  their  complete  form.  Such  has  been  the  will  and 
caprice  of  the  copyist  or  of  the  times,  which  destroyed 
or  preserved  them  blindly.  Destiny,  with  its  inequali¬ 
ties  and  injustices,  extends  its  empire  even  over  writ¬ 
ings:  habent  sua  fata .  libelli.  We  do  not  speak  of 
certain  convincing  pieces  which  were  of  a  special  and 
fragile  nature,  and  unworthy  of  being  preserved,  for 
example  the  nose  which  a  poor  devil  of  Tanagra  left 
under  the  tooth  of  his  enemy,  Aristogiton. 

Titus  Livius  recapitulates  the  decrees  of  the  senate, 
even  the  most  important,  in  place  of  transcribing  them; 
for  example,  that  of  the  Bacchanals.  In  the  last  edi¬ 
tion  Demosthenes  generally  omitted  technical  docu¬ 
ments  in  which  there  was  no  oratorical  display.  Cras- 
sus  wrote  but  little  (. Brutus ,  44),  and  even  his  written 

*  Thus  we  have  only  the  titles  of  CliabYias’  services;  of  the  bills 
drawn  up  against  Midias;  of  the  administrative  documents  (military 
and  financial)  of  the  Third  Philippic;  of  the  financial  plan  of  the  First. 


192 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


orations  do  not  contain  all  that  he  said  at  the  tribune. 
He  sometimes  deemed  it  sufficient  to  indicate  certain 
points  without  treating  them  thoroughly.  Such  ap¬ 
peared  like  headings  of  chapters,  or  at  the  most  brief 
summaries.  The  Roman  orator  disdained  the  glory  of 
a  writer.  Hot  caring  to  transmit  the  beauties  of  form, 
he  was  particular  to  represent  clearly  the  essential 
groundwork.  A  different  sentiment  guided  Demos¬ 
thenes  in  his  selections.  He  sacrificed  the  unworthy 
portions  which  could  not  be  treated  in  an  elegant 
manner. 

Quæ  desperat  tractata  nitescere  posse,  relinquit. 

'Documents  whose  loss  is  obvious  to  modern  readers 
had  little  value  in  his  eves.  He  seemed  to  fear  that 
posterity  would  not  be  interested  in  certain  particular 
topics;  he  wished  to  transmit  to  posterity  orations  em¬ 
bellished  with  such  developments  as  would  earn  ad¬ 
miration  in  all  countries  and  at  all  times. 

III.  Hence  the  suppression  of  a  thousand  local 
or  temporary  circumstances,  which  were  undoubtedly 
present  to  the  mind  of  his  hearers,  but  which  are 
passed  over  in  silence  with  the  reader.  To  these 
details  Demosthenes  expressly  preferred  political,  ad¬ 
ministrative,  moral  theses,  in  which  eloquence  was  dis¬ 
played ‘with  all  its  advantages,  and  this  to  the  great 
displeasure  of  modern  criticism.  Why  is  it  so  difficult 
to  assign  exact  dates  to  the  Olynthiacs  f  *  It  is  be¬ 
cause  they  do  not  contain  sufficient  precise  indications 
of  the  circumstances  which  preceded  or  called  forth 
the  orator’s  speech.  It  would  be  easy  to  assign  De- 

*  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  gave  the  Olynthiacs  in  an  order  con¬ 
trary  to  that  of  the  manuscripts  and  of  the  most  ancient  commen¬ 
tators. 


193 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 

mosthenes’  works  to  their  proper  time  and  events  if 
history  were  found  repeated  in  them  from  day  to  day. 
These  details  would  throw  light  on  his  harangues  for 
us,  as  the  frame  of  the  historical  narrative  throws  light 
on  those  of  Thucydides.  But  Demosthenes  did  not 
write  for  critics  or  historians  of  the  future,  hut  for  the 
learned. 

Attic  eloquence  did  not  dislike  commonplace  things, 
taking  this  word  in  its  highest  acceptation.  It  will¬ 
ingly  effaced  the  realities  of  the  moment  that  it  might 
elevate  the  oration  to  considerations  which  were  su¬ 
perior  to  actual  events.  Thus  the  sculptor  effaced  the 
personal  traits  of  the  victor  in  the  games  in  order  to 
substitute  for  it  an  anonymous  and  impersonal  beauty, 
but  its  effect  was  sure  and  universal.  There  is  in 
Demosthenes’  eloquence  a  trace  of  philosophical  spirit 
which  is  attached  less  to  those  particular  accidents 
which  are  modified  to  infinity  and  pass  away  than  to 
the  general  and  immutable  element.  The  author  of 
the  Antidosis  eulogized  general  developments  and  suc¬ 
cessfully  applied  his  talent  to  them.  By  this  means, 
but  by  this  means  only,  he  justified  the  complacent 
praise  which  Socrates  gives  him  in  the  Phœdrus  :  “  In 
this  young  man  there  is  philosophy.”  To  this  spirit 
of  generalization  are  attached  political  or  moral  theo¬ 
ries,  recitals  of  principles,  oratorical  definitions,  and 
portraits  (the  true  democrat,  the  faithful  ambassador, 
the  sycophant,  etc.),  which  are  diffused  in  the  works  of 
masters  of  oratory.  Their  style  wras  indebted  to  that 
manner  of  majestic  gravity  which,  even  at  the  time 
when  the  tribune  was  most  exciting  and  militant,  re¬ 
called  the  union  of  the  milder  eloquence  of  former 
ages  with  moral  philosophy.  Themistocles’  harangue 
9 


194 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


on  the  Greek  fleet  of  Salamis  ruled  over  all  opposi¬ 
tion.* 

The  Athenian  people,  frivolous  and  ideal  as  a  poet, 
were  also  very  capable  of  abstract  meditation.  Their 
philosophers,  Plato,  even  Aristotle,  whose  eloquence 
Cicero  compares  to  a  golden  stream  ( flumen  ctureum 
orationis ),  were  consummate  orators;  their  orators  like¬ 
wise  were  fond  of  philosophical  considerations.  The 
first  speech  against  Aristogiton  presents  a  remarkable 
proof  of  it.  Lycurgus,  says  Ariston’s  defender,  has  al¬ 
ready  treated  the  cause  profoundly.  “As  to  me,  I  wish 
to  entertain  you  with  thoughts  which  will  direct  all  de¬ 
liberation  on  state  interests  and  laws.  Permit  me,  Athe¬ 
nians,  in  the  name  of  Jupiter,  permit  me  to  use  here 
that  method  which  is  natural  to  me  and  has  my  prefer¬ 
ence.  I  could  practice  no  other.”  And  immediately 
he  .enters  upon  general  reflections,  morals,  laws  and  pub¬ 
lic  order.  “  I  will  say  nothing  new  nor  striking,  noth¬ 
ing  special  nor  original  (r&wv),  but  that  which  you  all 
know  as  well  as  myself.”  No  man  can  announce  the 
commonplace  things  which  follow  this  declaration  in  a 
more  determined  manner.  The  orator  interrupts  them 
a  moment  in  order  to  make  valid  certain  proofs  which 
escaped  from  Lycurgus.  But  he  quickly  returns  to  his 
accustomed  manner.  He  bows  before  Adrastia  and 
Nemesis;  he  recalls  the  universality  of  religious  senti¬ 
ment.  “All  nations  have  erected  shrines  to  Justice, 
to  Law,  to  Modesty.  Although  an  honest  man’s  heart 
may  be  the  most  beautiful  and  most  saintly  sanctuary, 
those  which  his  hand  has  raised  are  not  less  worthy  of 
veneration.  But  what  sacrifices  were  ever  offered  to 
Impudence,  to  Perjury,  to  Ingratitude, —  vices  which 
dwelt  in  Aristogiton’s  heart?  ”  Later  he  traces  à  priori 

*  Herodotus,  viii,  83. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


195 


the  picture  of  this  public  snarler’s  partisan;  and  at  the 
close,  in  a  pathetic  appeal,  he  asks  the  judges  with  what 
conscience  they  will  ever  dare  prostrate  themselves 
before  Cybele,  if,  false  to  their  oaths,  they  violate  the 
laws  intrusted  to  their  defense. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  mark  clearlv  in  what  sense  and 

•/  o 

in  what  measure  Demosthenes  favored  general  develop¬ 
ments;  even  in  these  specimens  he  remains  himself, 
that  is  to  say,  sober  and  rigorous.  “Persons  of  no 
instruction  persuade  the  multitude  more  easily  than 
the  learned.  In  fact,  they  have  recourse  to  common¬ 
place  things,  to  general  considerations;  the  learned  to 
things  which  they  know,  and  which  pertain  to  the  sub¬ 
ject.”*  In  this  respect  Demosthenes1  elocpience  is  both 
learned  and  popular.  Always  and  everywhere  he  con¬ 
fines  himself  closely  to  his  subject  and  remains  a  pre¬ 
cise  logician.  Nevertheless,  if  he  is  not  one  of  the 
school  of  Buffon,  who  seeks  general  terms  as  the  most 
noble,  he  admires  general  themes  as  the  best  adapted 
to  eloquence.  Thus,  having  selected  a  theme,  Demos¬ 
thenes  develops  its  thoughts  with  sound  reasoning  and 
not  phrases,  by  producing  arguments  and  facts.  These 
developments  are  entirely  different  from  commonplace 
things  or  abstract  conceptions,  without  direct  applica¬ 
tion  or  supplementary  proofs;  but  with  all  that,  they 
are  of  such  a  character  that  he  could  repeat  them  al¬ 
most  indifferently  every  time  he  mounted  the  rostrum,  f 

*  Aristotle,  Rhetoric ,  ii,  22. 

t  Here  are  some  of  them:  It  is  the  orator’s  duty  to  give  the  best 
counsels,  yours  to  follow  them  Equity  is  the  only  solid  foundation 
of  the  undertakings  of  men.  If  you  wish  to  fight  the  public  enemy 
successfully,  at  first  chastise  your  domestic  enemies,  the  traitors. 
Venality  is  the  never-dying  worm  of  Greece.  If  Athens  does  not  save 
the  people  who  are  attacked  by  Philip,  there  will  come  a  day  when 
she  cannot  save  herself.  Defiance  is  the  surest  rampart  of  free 


196 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


The  situation,  on  the  whole,  always  remains  the  same; 
the  orator’s  objective  also  remains  the  same;  and  con¬ 
sequently  his  eloquence,  rich  and  various  in  its  means, 
is  uniform  in  the  common  basis  of  ideas  and  senti¬ 
ments.  Demosthenes’  political  orations,  especially 
the  Olynthi.acs  and  Philippics,  do  not  reflect,  like  the 
orations  of  our  modern  assemblies,  the  various  inci¬ 
dents  of  the  political  life  of  each  day.  They  all  have  a 
familiar  air;  they  are  all  born  of  necessities  and  of  the 
same  spirit. 

These  reflections  on  general  developments  are  es¬ 
pecially  applicable  to  the  Orations  of  Demosthenes, 
which  belong  to  the  purely  deliberative  class;  in  those 
which  belong  in  some  degree  to  the  judicial  class, 
the  orator,  without  hesitation,  enters  upon  arduous 
discussions  of  facts  and  dates.  From  minute  details 
he  draws  indications  or  proofs  with  the  marvelous 
sagacity  of  his  civil  speeches,  in  which  he  finds  it 
necessary  at  every  moment  to  offer  comments  on  the 
laws.  Thus  the  oration  On  the  Embassy ,  notably  in 
the  first  part,  is  a  concise  controversy  in  which  De¬ 
mosthenes  seizes  his  adversary  hand  and  foot,  and 
binds  him  in  all  manners.  If  he  retreats,  he  follows 
him  step  by  step;  if  he  advances,  he  incloses  him  in 
iron  bands,  without  permitting  him  to  escape  from 
them.  He  constantly  holds  him  at  the  sword’s  point, 
and  baffles  all  his  disguises  and  efforts  to  disengage 
himself.  Æschines  is  a  Proteus;  but  Demosthenes 

states.  Philip  is  the  aggressor, —  to  tight  him  is  to  defend  ourselves. 
Philip  hates  and  distrusts  our  republic;  his  sole  aim  is  to  destroy 
it.  Do  not  depend  on  another,  nor  on  the  gods,  if  you  do  not  aid 
yourselves.  Athens  has  always  been  more  careful  of  her  honor  than 
of  her  money.  At  all  times  she  has  preferred  the  rights  of  the  Hel¬ 
lenes  to  her  own  advantages.  She  ought  to  be  inspired  by  the  mag¬ 
nanimity  of  her  ancestors. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


197 


knows  how  to  entangle  him  so  cunningly  in  his  strong 
and  inflexible  meshes  of  argument,  that  he  cannot 
escape  him.  If  he  does  not  succumb  under  his  ad¬ 
versary’s  blows,  he  at  least  receives  them  all;  he 
withdraws  from  the  contest  defeated,  if  not  pros¬ 
trated.* 

In  the  second  part  of  the  harangue,  general  themes 
find  place, — it  is  because  the  oration  On  the  Embassy 
belongs  to  both  the  tribune  and  the  bar.  Likewise, 
the  oration  On  the  Chersonesus  contains  a  debate  which 
relates  to  Diopithes,  and  considerations  on  general 
politics.  Only  one  of  Demosthenes’  exclusively  po¬ 
litical  harangues  is  really  technical, — the  Oration  on 
the  Navy  Boards .  The  author  has  taken  care  to  show 
this  peculiarity  of  his  work:  “As  for  me,  Athenians, 
imbued  with  these  reflections  and  other  similar  ones, 
I  have  not  employed  boasting  expressions,  nor  use¬ 
less  and  long  orations;  but  your  preparations,  their 
best  form,  their  greatest  haste, —  such  is  the  difficult 
subject  which  I  have  taken  the  pains  to  investigate.” 
Demosthenes  pursued  this  course  so  much  more  will¬ 
ingly  because  he  could  not  permit  this  rigid  oration 
to  face  the  tribune.  Our  political  orator  of  thirty-one 
years  would  undoubtedly  have  needed  an  authority 
in  which  he  was  wanting,  even  after  his  success  against 
Leptines,  to  make  this  dry  work  agreeable  to  an 
audience  of  amateurs.  We  doubt,  with  the  wise 
critics,  that  the  Oration  on  the  Navy  Boards  was  ever 
delivered. 

*  He  reminds  us  of  Entellus,  who  makes  blows  fall  like  liail-stones 
on  Dares. 

Nee  mora,  nec  requies,  quam  multa  grandine  nimbi 

Culminibus  crepitant,  sic  densis  ictibus  héros 

Creber  utraque  manu  puisât  versatque  Dareta.  {Æ?ieid,Y,  458.) 


198 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GItEECE. 


Judicial  oratory  dwells  on  tlie  past,  deliberative 
on  the  future.  The  deliberative  is,  therefore,  the 
more  difficult;  but  it  is,  in  turn,  the  more  beautiful,'”* 
for  it  is  nourished  with  the  noblest  material.  Elo¬ 
quence  is  free  from  the  miseries  and  petty  passions 
of  every-day  life.  Besides  the  interests  and  safety  of 
private  individuals,  it  watches  the  interests  and  safety 
of  the  commonwealth.  It  does  not  stop  to  torture  a 
law  text  which  may  be  left  a  prey  to  eternal  chicanery. 
Like  the  Roman  pretor,  it  does  not  oversee  trifling 
things.  It  is  occupied  with  public  duty,  political  and 
social  justice,  national  honor,  and  the  human  and 
divine  laws  which  are  the  unchangeable  interpreters 
of  the  conscience  of  all  times.  Demosthenes’  soul 
was  adequate  to  these  sublime  objects,  and  his  elo¬ 
quence  equaled  them  without  an  effort.  This  preemi¬ 
nent  dignity  was  due.  to  the  orator’s  taste  for  general 
developments,  and  to  the  superior  talent  with  which 
he  gave  finished  expression  to  the  conception  and 
sentiment  of  what  was  true  and  beautiful. 

*  Aristotle,  Rhetoric ,  i,  1  ;  iii,  17. 


“V. 


CHAPTER  VL 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  ELEMENTS  AND  CHAR¬ 
ACTERISTICS  OF  DEMOSTHENES’  ELOQUENCE. 


(continued.) 


^HE  spirit  and  life  of  Demosthenes’  eloquence 


A-  was  born,  in  a  great  degree,  from  the  nature  of 
his  reasoning.  He  employed  no  long,  logical  deduc- 
tions,  but  a  series  of  striking  observations,  recollec¬ 
tions,  examples,  and  convincing  pictures.  Demos¬ 
thenes  often  proved  without  reasoning.  He  spoke 
and  painted  the  truth.  lie  repeatedly  impressed  the 
hearer  with  it.  He  urged  him,  hurried  him,  compelled 
him  to  march  with  him.  Ilis  power  was  invincible. 
Compelled  to  yield  to  the  evidence,  the  Athenian 
could  cry  out,  as  did  Marshal  Gramont  at  the  foot  of 
Bourdaloue’s  chair,  “  By  heavens,  he  is  right!  ” 

His  motto  was,  Hot  words,  but  deeds  (Où  Myoç,  àU' 
epyov.)  You  lost  your  opportunity  at  Heræa,  Athe¬ 
nians;  do  not  lose  it  again  at  Olynthus.  See  the 
mistakes  which  caused  you  to  lose  Amphipolis;  avoid 
falling  into  them  again.  Philip  protests  with  his 
pacific  designs.  Consider  the  plan  of  his  usurpations 
which  he  has  perfidiously  followed,  and  which  Demos¬ 
thenes  now  unrolls  before  the  eyes  of  the  assembly. 
Apology  and  parabole  are  suitable  to  orations  delivered 
before  the  multitude,  and  it  is  easier  to  invent  them  to 
please  the  people  than  to  draw  examples  from  history. 
‘•‘But  examples  have  more  weight  in  deliberations;  for 
the  future  generally  bears  a  great  resemblance  to  the 


199 


% 


200 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


past.”  *  Demosthenes  had  too  rich  a  provision  of 
examples  at  command  to  have  recourse  to  fable,  and 
the  vivacity  of  his  arguments  further  aided  the  natural 
force  of  the  lessons  which  he  drew  from  the  past.  “  It 
is  folly  and  cowardice,  in  the  presence  of  such  exam¬ 
ples,  to  constantly  recoil  before  duty,  *  *  *  to  imagine, 
on  the  faith  of  the  enemy’s  orators,  that  Athens,  by 
her  grandeur,  is  out  of  all  danger.  How  shameful  to 
say  in  the  future,  after  the  event:  But ,  just  gods  !  who 
could  have  expected  it  f  We  should  have  done  this , 
not  that .”  All  nations  that  have  perished  could  to¬ 
day  make  many  such  tardy  reflections.  “But  what 
doth  it  avail  them  now  ?  While  the  vessel  is  safe, 
whether  it  be  great  or  small,  the  mariner,  the  pilot, 
every  person,  should  exert  himself  in  his  particular 
station,  and  preserve  it  from  being  wrecked,  either  by 
villainy  or  unskillfulness.  But  when  the  sea  hath 
once  broken  in,  all  care  is  vain.”f  For  Demosthenes’ 
history  is  literally  “the  torch  of  truth,”  the  “mistress 
of  life.”  (De  Oratore ,  ii,  9).  His  maxim  was  that 
“past  events  ought  to  always  be  present  to  the  minds 
of  the  wise.”  His  conduct  conformed  to  this  precept: 
“Observing  affairs  from  their  beginning,  foreseeing 
their  results,  announcing  them  to  the  people,  is  what  I 
have  done.”  An  eloquence  thus  furnished  with  coher¬ 
ent  reflections,  and  recollections  must  be  rich  in  dem¬ 
onstrations  from  facts.  It  was  not  Demosthenes  who 
convinced  and  put  the  Athenians  to  the  blush;  it  was 
the  reality  he  drew  before  their  eyes.  Zeno  compared 
eloquence  to  the  open  hand,  dialectics  to  the  clinched 
fist.  Demosthenes’  eloquent  dialectics  united  the  ad¬ 
vantages  of  both  processes.  He  developed  truth  with 


*  Aristotle,  Rhetoric,  ii,  20. 


Third  Philippic ,  §  67  et  seq. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  OKATOR. 


201 


irresistible  éclat;  and  lie  dealt  blows  on  the  contradictor 
from  which  he  could  not  recover. 

Demosthenes,  as  a  political  orator,  owed  much  to 
the  logographer.  From  Isæus,  his  master,  he  learned 
to  cut  down  his  long  sentences,  to  chasten  his  style, 
and  to  soften  its  harshness.  Fie  especially  accustomed 
himself  to  dialectics  in  the  midst  of  the  arduous  dis¬ 
cussions  of  cases  which  bristled  with  as  many  thorns 
as  a  hedgehog ,  and  wdiicli  contained  tedious  arguments. 
Demosthenes  would  not  have  been  so  powerful  against 
Philip  if  the  gymnastics  at  the  bar  had  not  developed 
his  language  and  mind.  Traces  of  these  strengthening 
studies  are  found  in  the  orator’s  art  to  seek  the  reason 
of  things  and  the  motives  of  actions.  ‘‘Deflect  for  a 
moment,  Athenians.  You  have  often  made  war  on 
democracies  and  oligarchies;  you  know  it  as  well  as  I 
do.  But  the  motives  which  armed  you  in  both  cases 
none  among  you,  perhaps,  inquired  into.  What  are 
these  motives  ?  ”  And  the  orator  indicates  them  with 
sagacity.  He  likewise  excels  in  analyzing  the  human 
mind:  if  he  wishes  to  exculpate  himself  from  the  diverse 
sentiments  to  wdiicli  his  enemies  might  attribute  his 
action  against  FEschines,  he  reviews  all  the  suppo¬ 
sitions  of  malevolence,  and  sliowTs  their  vanity  like  a 
skillful  logician.  He  explores  the  soul  of  the  Mace¬ 
donian  king,  and  discovers  his  most  secret  calculations 
with  a  perspicuity  which  was  sharpened  for  these  divi¬ 
nations  by  his  exercise  in  detecting  the  true  motives 
of  Philip’s  orators,  who  practiced  deceit  and  falsehood. 
Thus  his  practice  at  the  bar  developed  the  penetration 
of  a  genius  which  was  naturally  observing. 

One  of  Demosthenes’  most  powerful  forms  of  argu¬ 
ment  was  the  dilemma.  We  do  not  see  liowÆschines 
could  have  answered  this: 


202 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


“  Now,  consider  in  your  minds  how  convincing  the  proof 
of  his  guilt  will  be.  I  presume  that  Æschines,  the  defend¬ 
ant,  must  have  addressed  those  speeches  to  you, —  those  about 
the  Phocions  and  Thespiæ  and  Euboea  (supposing  he  was 
not,  from  a  corrupt  motive,  intentionally  playing  false), — 
from  one  of  two  causes:  either  because  he  had  heard  Philip 
expressly  promise  to  effect  and  do  the  things  in  question,  or 
else  because  he  was  charmed  and  beguiled  by  Philip's  general 
liberality,  and  therefore  expected  those  things  from  him  also. 
There  is  no  other  alternative.  Now,  in  either  of  these  cases 
he  ought,  beyond  all  other  men,  to  detest  Philip.  Why? 
Because,  so  far  as  it  depended  on  Philip,  he  has  suffered  the 
utmost  indignity  and  disgrace.  He  has  deceived  you;  he 
has  become  infamous;  he  is  judged  to  be  a  lost  man,  if  he 
had  his  deserts.  Had  due  proceedings  been  taken  he  would 
have  been  impeached  long  ago;  but  now,  through  your  sim¬ 
plicity  and  good  nature,  he  attends  his  audit  and  chooses  his 

* 

time  for  it.  Is  there  one  of  you  who  has  heard  the  voice  of 
Æschines  accusing  Philip?  —  who  has  seen  him  pressing  any 
charge  or  speaking  to  the  point?  No  one.  Every  Athenian 
is  more  ready  to  accuse  Philip, —  any,  indeed,  that  you  like, — 
though  none  of  them  has  assuredly  sustained  personal  injury. 
I  should  have  expected  language  like  this  from  him  if  he 
had  not  sold  himself:  ‘Men  of  Athens,  deal  with  me  as  you 
please.  I  believed.  I  was  deluded.  I  was  in  error.  I  con¬ 
fess  it.  But  beware  of  the  man,  0  Athenians!  He  is  not 
to  be  trusted.  He  is  a  juggler,  a  villain.  See  you  not  how 
he  has  treated  me?  —  how  he  has  cajoled  me?’  I  hear  no 
language  of  this  kind,  nor  do  you.  Why?  Because  he  was 
not  cajoled  nor  deceived,  but  had  hired  himself  and  taken 
money  when  he  made  those  statements  and  betrayed  you  to 
Philip,  and  has  been  a  good,  true  and  faithful  hireling  to 
him,  but  a  traitorous  ambassador  and  citizen  to  you,  deserv¬ 
ing  to  perish  not  once,  but  three  times  over.”* 


*  Embassy,  102  et  seq. 


203 


DEMOSTIIEKES - THE  OEATOE. 

Where  can  we  find  a  closer  alliance  of  logic  and 
passion  ? 

Without  having  a  prompt  imagination  on  the  ros¬ 
trum,  Demosthenes  sometimes  found  happy  replies. 
Pytheas  once  told  him  that  all  his  arguments 
smelled  of  the  lamp.  Demosthenes  retorted  sharply 
upon  him,  “Yes,  indeed;  but  your  lamp  and  mine, 
my  friend,  are  not  conscious  of  the  same  labors.” 
This  same  Pytheas  was  dissuading  his  fellow  citizens 
from  uniting  themselves  with  the  Athenians:  “As 
some  sickness  is  always  supposed  to  be  in  the  house 
into  which  asses’  milk  is  brought,  so  the  city  which 
an  Athenian  embassy  ever  enters  must  necessarily 
be  in  a  sick  and  decaying  condition.”  Demosthenes 
turned  the  comparison  against  him  by  saying:  “As 
asses’  milk  never  enters  but  for  curing  the  sick,  so  the 
Athenians  never  appear  but  for  remedying  some  dis¬ 
order.”  Æschines  reproached  him  for  his  excessive 
movements  on  the  rostrum.  “  It  is  not  for  the  orator, 
Æschines,  but  for  the  Ambassador,  to  hold  his  hand 
under  his  cloak.” 

Demosthenes’  formal  refutations  had  a  vigor  at  least 
equal  to  the  sallies  of  his  replies.  Here  is  a  speci¬ 
men  in  which  both  logic  and  sense  are  united:  “I 
know,  indeed,  that  Æschines  will  avoid  all  discus¬ 
sion  of  tli e  charges  against  him;  that,  seeking  to 
withdraw  you  as  far  as  possible  from  the  facts,  lie 
will  rehearse  wliat  mighty  blessings  accrue  to  man¬ 
kind  from  peace,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  what  evils 
from  war;  in  short,  he  will  pronounce  a  panegyric 
on  peace,  and  take  up  that  line  of  defense.  Yet  even 
these  are  so  many  arguments  to  convict  him.  For  if 
the  cause  of  blessings  to  others  has  been  the  cause 
of  so  many  troubles  and  such  confusion  to  us,  what 


204 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


else  can  one  suppose,  but  tliat  by  taking  bribes  these 
men  have  spoiled  a  thing  in  its  own  nature  excellent  ? 
Oh,  but  —  he  may  say,  perhaps, —  have  you  not  pre¬ 
served,  and  won’t  you  preserve  through  the  peace, 
three  hundred  galleys,  with  stores  for  them  and 
money  ?  In  regard  to  this  you  must  understand  that 
Philip’s  resources  likewise  have  been  largely  aug¬ 
mented  through  the  peace,  in  supplies  of  arms,  in 
territory,  in  revenues,  of  which  he  has  gained  an 
abundance.  *  *  *  But  that  establishment  of  power 
and  alliances,  through  which  people  hold  their  good 
things  either  for  themselves  or  their  superiors, —  ours 
has  been  sold  by  these  men,  and  gone  to  ruin  and 
decay;  his  hath  become  formidable  and  mightier  by 
far.  It  is  not  just  that  Philip,  through  these  men, 
should  have  augmented  both  his  alliances  and  his  rev¬ 
enues,  while  what  Athens  must  naturally  have  gained 
by  the  peace  they  set  off  against  what  was  sold  by 
themselves.  The  one  has  not  come  to  us  in  exchange 
for  the  other, — very  far  from  it:  one  we  should  equally 
have  had,  and  the  other  in  addition  but  for  these 
men.  Moreover,  has  Æschines  the  right  to  declare 
himself  the  author  of  the  peace  ? 

“What  I  am  about  to  say  is  strange,  yet  perfectly 
true:  if  any  one  is  really  glad  of  the  peace,  let  him 
thank  the  generals  for  it,  whom  all  accuse.  Had  they 
carried  on  the  war  as  you  desired,  the  very  name  of 
peace  would  have  been  intolerable  to  you.  Peace, 
therefore,  is  owing  to  them:  perilous  and  unstable 
and  insecure  has  it  become  through  these  men  having 
taken  bribes.  Bar  him,  bar  him,  then,  from  any  argu¬ 
ment  in  favor  of  peace,  and  put  him  to  his  defense 
for  what  he  has  done.”  * 

*  Embassy ,  §§  88,  96. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR.  205 

The  comparative  study  of  the  orations  of  Demosthe¬ 
nes  and  Æscliines  at  first  suggests  one  remark, —  the 
identity  of  their  means.  Their  arms  seem  to  have 
been  chosen  exactly  equal,  as  if  for  a  duel.  The  two 
orators  draw  powerful  effects  from  the  decrees  which 
they  place  in  contrast.  They  eulogize  Solon  and  their 
ancestors.  They  speak  with  the  same  respect  of  the 
majesty  of  the  laws  and  the  guardians  of  the  city. 
Both  declare  their  sincerity,  their  disinterested  devo¬ 
tion  to  the  commonwealth,  and  they  censure  the  Athe¬ 
nians  for  their  indulgence  toward  flattering  demagogues. 
If  they  recommend  themselves  by  the  same  oratorical 
manners,  they  blacken  the  character  of  their  enemy 
with  the  same  stains.  Æscliines  and  Demosthenes 
had  souls  that  were  covetous  and  ridiculously  vain. 
They  attached  a  higher  price  to  the  specious  beauty  of 
their  orations  than  to  truth;  to  an  ephemeral  success 
on  the  rostrum  than  to  the  safety  of  the  state.  Æs- 
cliines  was  at  first  the  enemy,  then  the  hireling,  of 
Philip.  Demosthenes,  at  first  the  accomplice  of  Phi- 
locrates,  subsequently  became  his  accuser.  They  in¬ 
cessantly  changed  their  politics,  faithful  only  to  the 
unchangeable  inspiration  of  their  own  interests.  They 
invoked  the  same  examples,  —  that  of  Arthmius  of 
Zelea.  They  reproached  each  other  for  complicity 
with  the  enemy,  by  the  intermedium  of  the  spy,  Anax- 
inus,  or  of  Aristion,  Demosthenes’  young  friend.  De¬ 
mosthenes  alone  has  ruined  all.  lie  was  damned. 
Æscliines  alone  has  lost  all.  He  was  the  chief  of  the 
traitors.  Demosthenes  falsified  concerning  the  woman 
of  Olynthus.  Ilis  entire  harangue  is  therefore  a  false¬ 
hood.  Æscliines  attacked  Ctesiplion  in  place  of  pro¬ 
voking  Demosthenes  face  to  face.  The  whole  ground¬ 
work  of  his  accusation  is  therefore  as  contrary  to  justice 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


206 

as  it  is  to  truth.  The  two  adversaries  pursue  the  same 
tone  in  a  docile  manner.  “As  to  his  tears,  his  wail¬ 
ing  voice,  when  he  will  cry  out:  Where  am  1  to  flee , 
Athenians?  exiled  f/om  Athens,  1  no  l(,nger  have  an 
asylum /  answer  him:  Ah,  Demosthenes,  where  will 

find  money  and 
allies  ?  what  resources  has  your  ministry  assured  the 
republic?”  “  This  •  culpable  deputy  will  weep  over 
himself.  He  will  perhaps  present  his  little  children. 
He  will  show  them  before  the  rostrum.  With  the 
children  of  this  man,  judges,  compare  in  your  minds 
the  children  of  so  many  allies  and  friends,  dispersed, 
wandering  and  miserable,  afflicted  with  cruel  evils  on 
account  of  him,  and  much  more  worthy  of  compassion 
than  the  sons  of  so  criminal  a  father  and  of  so  treach¬ 
erous  a  traitor.  Think  of  your  own  children,  and  of 
their  descendants,  from  whom  Philocrates  and  yEselii- 
nes  (allusion  to  the  perpetual  peace)  have  taken  away 
all  hopes.”  The  orations  On  the  Grown  and  On  the 
Embassy  might  have  been  written  in  juxtaposition, 
since  Æschines  would  wish  to  see  the  ancient  and  the 
new  decrees  compared.  Their  constant  affinities,  their 
exact  parallelism,  is  striking.  The  two  antagonists 
attacked  each  other  like  two  powerful  athletes  of  equal 
size.  Every  member  of  their  bodies  was  developed 
and  peculiarly  fitted  to  cope  with  the  antagonist  : 
hceret  pede  pes ,  densusque  viro  vir. 

These  similarities  depend  upon  two  principal  causes: 
the  orations  of  the  two  rivals  were  revised  with  care, 
after  the  debates,  so  that  no  weak  points  were  left 
uncovered,  no  advantages  unseen;  they  were  adjusted 
to  each  other  during  leisure  hours.  Furthermore, 
at  the  bar  and  on  the  rostrum  of  Athens,  certain  argu¬ 
ments  or  oratorical  proceedings  were  employed  out 


the  Athenians  fly  ?  where  will  they 


207 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 

of  respect  for  tradition.  The  orator  did  not,  perhaps, 
draw  great  and  powerful  effects  from  them,  but  if  he 
disregarded  them,  lie  ran  the  risk  of  appearing  too 
confident  in  his  own  ability  and  disdainful  toward 
sacred  custom,- — a  neglect  doubly  dangerous  before  a 
sensitive  and  formal  audience.  For  more  than  a 
century  (1635-1755),  until  Duel  os,  the  prizes  decreed 
by  the  French  Academy  for  the  finest  eloquence  drew 
their  subjects  from  ethics  and  moral  philosophy.  Long 
after  him,  the  orations  on  reception  followed  a  cer¬ 
tain  outline  which  had  been  traced  beforehand  (as 
was  that  of  the  funeral  orations  at  Athens),  and  the 
only  thing  to  relieve  the  monotony  was  the  talent 
of  the  new  member.  The  tyranny  of  usage  was  like¬ 
wise  imposed  on  Attic  eloquence.  Without  speaking 
of  the  uniform  developments  which  the  uniformity  of 
situations  produced,  the  orators  of  the  Pnyx  or  the 
logographers  sometimes  willingly  bound  themselves 
to  socomes  which  were  not  necessary,  but  decorous. 
They  prayed  the  judges  to  defend  themselves  from 
the  instances  of  solicitors,  to  rigidly  confine  the 
orator  to  the  subject;  they  contrasted  the  wise  parsi¬ 
mony  of  recompenses  in  former  times  with  the  in¬ 
discreet  prodigality  of  the  present  time;  the  severity 
of  their  ancestors  with  the  indifference  of  their  de¬ 
scendants.  Themistocles  was  banished;  Cimon  con¬ 
demned  to  pay  a  fine  of  fifty  talents.  To-day,  when 
our  public  enemies  are  convicted,  they  are  acquitted 
for  twenty-five  drachmas. 

The  occasion  can  justify  these  and  other  similar  com¬ 
monplace  remarks;  but  there  are  some  to  which  this 
excuse  is  injurious.  Thus  bold  pleaders,  in  order  to 
impose  upon  the  tribunal  of  judges  and  readers,  offer 
to  yield  the  floor  to  their  adversary.  “Let  him  speak 


208 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


of  my  water-drinking,  I  consent  to  it.”  They  launch 
bold  challenges  (w pôzXyfftç)  on  paper,  assured  that  they 
will  not  be  taken  at  their  word.  “  He  asserts  that  the 
delegates  of  Greece  were  then  among  you.  *  *  *  Well, 
then,  Demosthenes,  mount  this  platform.  I  yield  it  to 
you.  *  *  *  If  you  can  prove  that  their  presentation  to 
the  council,  and  the  decrees  are  of  the  date  which  you 
assign  to  them,  I  will  descend  and  condemn  myself  to 
death.  ”  These  challenges  are  simple  modes  of  speaking, 
so  much  so  that  sometimes  the  author  of  the  interpola¬ 
tion  immediately  passes  on  and  continues  to  address  the 
audience  without  awaiting,  even  for  the  sake  of  form, 
his  adversary’s  response.  They  administer  the  torture 
with  as  much  ease  as  the  simple  oath.  uWe  therefore 
produce  our  slaves  and  deliver  them  to  the  question; 

I  will  interrupt  myself  if  the  accuser  consents  to  it;  the 
executioner  will  come  immediately  and  put  them  to  the 
torture  before  you  if  you  order  it.”  The  opposing 
party  does  not  answer,  as  it  is  supposed,  and  the  orator 
triumphs.  u  Then  Demosthenes  refuses  my  challenge, 
does  not  accept  the  testimony  of  slaves  when  put  to 
the  torture,  and  takes  Philip’s  letter.”  In  reading  the 
Attic  orators  we  would  suspect  the  Athenians  of  enjoy¬ 
ing  the  spectacle  of  torture  as  naturally  as  Perrin  Dan- 
din;  and  yet,  the  humane  city  of  Minerva  never  saw 
this  incident  produced  before  an  audience. 

Among  the  conventional  proceedings  of  Greek  elo¬ 
quence  there  are  some  very  striking  peculiarities.  Re¬ 
spect  for  the  letter  of  the  law  has  been  able  to  dictate 
to  a  council  of  war  this  sentence:  The  accused  is  con-  . 
demned,  first  to  death;  second  to  a  fine  of  one  dollar 
(the  assessment  for  the  offense  of  public  drunkenness). 
The  Attics  generally  at  first  demanded  the  punishment 
of  their  adversary,  but  they  did  not  long  maintain  this 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOB.  209 

rigor;  they  retreated  very  gracefully,  and  were  satisfied 
with  a  fine.  “  Those  Athenians  who  wish  to  rid  them- 
selves  of  Aristogiton,  whose  crime  against  the  law  is 
evident  and  manifest,  have  only  one  thing  to  do, —  to 
condemn  him  to  death,  or  at  least  to  such  a  fine  that  he 
cannot  pay  it  during  his  life.”  (Aristogiton  did  not 
atone  for  the  crimes  of  which  he  was  convicted,  either 
with  his  head  or  purse;  later  he  had  still  to  escape  from 
the  teeth  of  another  “  dog  of  the  people,”  Dinarchus.) 

The  accuser  rarely  forgot  to  ask  the  court  to  refuse 
the  criminal  permission  to  speak.  Æscliines  did  not 
disregard  this  established  custom.  Permitting  Demos¬ 
thenes  to  exculpate  himself  before  the  judges  is  au¬ 
thorizing  him  to  involve  them  in  perjury.  Let  Ctesi- 
phon  himself  establish  harmony  between  his  decree 
and  the  laws  if  he  can,  and  the  cause  will  be  judged. 
If  the  decree  is  found  to  be  illegal,  Demosthenes  can 
speak  in  the  special  pleading,  which  relates  to  the  fix¬ 
ing  of  punishment.  Laharpe  was  indignant  at  this 
“revolting”  pretension  of  JEschines.  He  would  have 
been  more  inspired  not  to  take  it  so  seriously.  The 
Greeks,  no  doubt,  had  not  the  high  respect  and  idea 
of  justice  and  law  which  exist  among  modern  men; 
and  even  reduced  to  its  true  work,  this  custom  of 
barring  the  defender  from  the  right  of  speech  bears  a 
strong  contrast  to  the  institution  of  our  official  advo¬ 
cates.  Nevertheless,  the  Athenians  were  not  unpro¬ 
vided  with  moral  or  common  sense  to  such  a  degree 
that  they  saw  in  it  anything  but  an  instigation,  which 
was  sanctified  and  almost  imposed  by  hatred.  Hy- 
perides  said  to  Polyeuctes,  the  accuser  of  Euxenippus: 
You  do  not  wish  that  any  one  should  assist  and  give 
him  the  support  of  his  words.  On  the  contrary,  you 
advise  the  judges  not  to  listen  to  those  who  will  mount 
9* 


210 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


this  rostrum  in  liis  behalf;  and  nevertheless  in  our 
city,  among  so  many  excellent  institutions,  is  there 
anything  more  beautiful,  more  conformative  to  democ¬ 
racy,  than  to  behold,  in  the  presence  of  judicial  dan¬ 
gers  which  threaten  an  accused  man  who  is  unable  to 
defend  himself,  a  well  wishing  citizen  using  his  right 
and  departing  from  the  crowd, —  advancing  and  coming 
to  his  aid, —  to  acquaint  the  judges  with  the  truth  of 
the  case  ?  Polyeuctes’  pretension,  contrary  to  jus¬ 
tice,  would  likewise  have  been  so  to  the  reality  of 
practice.  Polyeuctes  himself,  besides  other  Athenians 
who  were  called  to  his  assistance  before  the  court,  had 
recourse  to  ten  orators  in  his  suit.  Demosthenes  like¬ 
wise  shows  us  “all  orators”  under  arms  for  their  rich 
client  Midias.  The  venerable  traditions  and  proceed¬ 
ings  of  Greek  eloquence  made  each  of  the  two  orations 
On  the  Crown  the  counterpart  of  the  other.  Never 
did  harangues  resemble  each  other  more  in  exterior 
forms,  never  were  harangues  more  dissimilar.  The 
two  bodies  are  almost  equal,  but  as  to  soul  and  heart, 
what  a  profound  difference  ! 

The  form  of  Demosthenes’  oration  is  often  dramatic. 
Now  it  is  a  dialogue  between  the  hearer  and  himself, 
or  between  the  Athenians,  or  between  the  Athenians 
and  Philip;  now  it  is  a  monologue  of  the  king  reflect¬ 
ing  on  the  surest  means  of  accomplishing  his  projects 
in  all  security.  Demosthenes  moderately  uses  the 
apostrophe,  the  grape-shot  of  eloquence ,  according  to 
P.  L.  Courier,  but  always  with  fitness  and  energy. 

“  Some  of  our  orators,  I  observe,  take  not  the  same  thought 
for  you  as  for  themselves.  They  say  that  you  should  keep 
quiet,  though  you  are  injured;  but  they  cannot  themselves 
keep  quiet  among  you,  though  no  one  injures  them.  Come, 
raillery  apart,  suppose  you  were  thus  questioned,  Aristode- 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


211 


mus:  ‘Tell  me,  as  you  know  perfectly  well,  what  every  one 
else  knows,  that  the  life  of  private  men  is  secure  and  free 
from  trouble  and  danger,  while  that  of  statesmen  is  exposed 
to  scandal  and  misfortune,  full  of  daily  trials  and  hardships, 
how  comes  it  that  you  prefer,  not  the  quiet  and  easy  life,  but 
the  one  surrounded  with  peril?’  What  should  you  say?  If 
we  admitted  the  truth  of  what  would  be  your  best  possible 
answer,  namely,  that  all  you  do  is  for  honor  and  renown,  I 
wonder  what  puts  it  into  your  head  that  you  ought,  from 
such  motives,  to  exert  yourself  and  undergo  toil  and  danger, 
while  you  advise  the  state  to  give  up  exertion  and  remain 
idle.  You  cannot,  surely,  allege  that  Aristodemus  ought  to 
be  of  importance  at  Athens,  and  Athens  to  be  of  no  account 
among  the  Greeks.  Nor  again  do  I  see,  that  for  the  common¬ 
wealth  it  is  safe  to  mind  her  own  affairs  only,  and  hazardous 
for  you  not  to  be  a  superlative  busybody.  On  the  contrary, 
to  you  I  see  the  utmost  peril  from  your  meddling  and  over¬ 
meddling;  to  the  commonwealth,  peril  from  her  inactivity. 
But  I  suppose  you  inherit  a  reputation  from  your  father  and 
grandfather  which  it  were  disgraceful  in  your  own  person  to 
extinguish,  whereas  the  ancestry  of  the  state  was  ignoble  and 
mean.  This,  again,  is  not  so.  Your  father  was  a  thief  if  he 
resembled  }'OU,  whereas  by  the  ancestors  of  the  common¬ 
wealth,  as  all  men  know,  the  Greeks  have  twice  been  rescued 
from  the  brink  of  destruction.  Truly  the  behavior  of  some 
persons,  in  private  and  in  public,  is  neither  equitable  nor 
constitutional.  How  is  it  equitable  that  certain  of  these 
men  returned  from  prison  should  not  know  themselves,  while 
the  state  that  once  protected  all  Greece,  and  held  the  fore¬ 
most  place,  is  sunk  in  ignominy  and  humiliation?”  * 

The  scenes  in  the  Agora  and  Pnyx  present  in  De¬ 
mosthenes  lively  pictures.  Scarcely  has  the  lot  de¬ 
signated  the  judges  when  intrigue  besieges  them.  The 
question  is,  which  of  the  two  parties  can  best  show 


*  Fourth  Philippic,  70. 


212 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


contempt  for  the  law.  They  are  like  two  armies 
drawn  up  in  battle  array  (-apdrasw),  and  emulating  each 
other  in  factious  zeal  ( -apayyeMa )  to  charm  the  con¬ 
science  of  the  heliasts.  The  tribune  is  no  calmer. 
Demosthenes  has  just  mounted  it.  Posted  near  him, 
one  on  the  right,  the  other  on  the  left,  Æschines  and 
Philocrates  cry  out,  interrupt  and  torment  the  orator 
with  sarcasm.  “Great  wonder,  Athenians,  that  De¬ 
mosthenes  and  myself  are  not  of  the  same  opinion: 
he  drinks  water  and  I  wine!  ”  and  the  Athenians 
laugh.  After  Philocrates’  impertinence,  Æschines  ex¬ 
hibits  his  by  addressing  the  assembly.  Compelled 
by  outcries  to  descend  from  the  tribune:  “Among 
so  many  criers,  how  few  would  be  willing  to  fight,  if 
it  wrere  necessary.”  Aristogiton  had  no  equal  in  shout¬ 
ing  the  cry  of  war  at  the  Agora.  One  day  the  citizens 
were  being  enrolled;  our  warrior  crawls  to  the  assem¬ 
bly  leaning  on  a  crutch,  and  his  leg  bandaged.  Pho- 
cion,  who  was  presiding,  seeing  him  from  afar,  cried 
out:  “Clerk,  write  down  Aristogiton,  lame  and 

cowardly.”  Aristogitons  were  numerous  at  Athens. 
They  revenged  themselves  for  their  cowardice  in  the 
innocent  struggles  of  the  public  place  during  the 
session.  “If  they  appear  in  the  assembly,  their 
arms  are  vociferations,  audacity,  calumnious  imputa¬ 
tions,  invectives  of  sycophants,  impudent  gestures,  and 
other  similar  practices.  Nothing,  in  my  opinion,  is 
more  contrary  to  deliberations,  more  dishonorable  to 
Athens.  By  these  scandalous  excesses  they  triumph 
over  our  wisest  regulations;  they  make  a  jest  of  the 
laws,  of  presidents,  and  of  all  conveniences.”  Such 
are  the  madmen,  the  wild  beasts  (-à  rotadra  Qrjpia )  who 
encumber  the  tribune  to-day.”  This  dissoluteness  of 
the  cccles.ia ,  exaggerated,  no  doubt,  by  the  orators 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


213 


when  it  was  their  turn  to  suffer  from  it,  hacl  perhaps 
become  a  custom;  and  custom  modifies  everything. 
Such  small  disorder,  when  passed  into  the  custom, 
loses  much  of  its  malignity.  This  is  credible,  since 
the  storms  of  the  Attic  swarm  were  inoffensive  and 
easy  to  calm,  like  the  great  conflicts  of  the  bees  in 
Virgil  : 

Pulveris  exigui  jactu  compressa  quiescent. 

In  the  Council  of  the  Five  Hundred  (this  testimony 
is  borrowed  from  the  same  painter  of  the  parliament¬ 
ary  violences  at  Athens)  a  weak  grate  kept  off  the 
public  and  made  them  respect  the  secret  of  delibera¬ 
tions.  The  Areopagus  was  seated  in  the  royal  portico 
and  surrounded  by  a  mere  rope,  which  kept  off  the 
troublesome  and  insured  tranquillity.  As  soon  as  the 
clerk  cried  out  Retire ,  all  the  magistrates,  appointed 
by  lot,  consulted  in  peace,  under  the  protection  of  the 
laws,  without  fearing  the  insults  of  the  most  violent. 
These  and  a  thousand  other  equally  noble  rules  af¬ 
forded  respect  and  surety  to  the  state.  Perhaps  the 
day  will  come  when  a  mere  rope  will  with  us  be  a 
sufficient  barrier  in  a  similar  case;  but  even  up  to  this 
time  French  petulance  could  learn  lessons  of  respectful 
discretion  from  Athenian  democracy,  which  is  termed 
so  undisciplined. 

Demosthenes  was  nurtured  in  the  school  of  Thucydi¬ 
des,  and  in  imitating  this  orator  as  his  master  he  sur¬ 
passed  him.  Bossuet  confessed  that  he  read  little  of 
Demosthenes.  “  The  study  is  too  difficult  for  those 
who  are  occupied  with  other  thoughts.”  In  fact,  sub¬ 
stantial  and  concise,  he  gives  us  much  to  meditate  on. 
He  charms  the  reader  and  demands  all  his  attention, 
but  his  profundity  remains  luminous.  His  orations 
are  concentrated  and  limpid.  Sometimes  reasoning 


214 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


suffocates  passion  in  the  austere  historian.  His  strong 
logical  conceptions  are  addressed  to  the  intelligence 
rather  than  to  real  hearers.  Demosthenes  often  allows 
the  general  idea  to  mingle  with  the  impression  of  act¬ 
ual  reality.  The  words  reason,  consider ,  reflect ,  are 
found  in  him  every  moment.  He  wrote  his  harangues 
for  the  Athenians  and  for  the  thinkers  of  the  future; 
but  their  augmentation  is  always  allied  to  an  intense 
passion  with  direct  effect.  Besides  facts  which  speak 
and  “cry  out”  (aùrà  Boa)  themselves,  we  find  in  them 
warm  exhortations,  which  constitute  their  charming 
conclusions.  Emotion  and  demonstration,  reason  and 
passion, —  such  is  his  eloquence. 

II.  The  law  of  the  tribunals  forbade  the  pathetic  at 
Athens,  a  striking  indication  of  the  extreme  sensibility 
of  the  Hellenes.  Æneas  was  reproached  for  weeping 
more  profusely  than  was  becoming  to  the  founder  of 
an  empire.  The  heroes  of  Homer,  tender  and  fero¬ 
cious  in  their  turn,  were  not  less  prompt  to  be  satiated 
with  tears  (jôoto  répit strOai).  According*  to  Herodotus 
(vi,  21),  the  Athenians  fined  the  poet  Phryniclius  for 
making  them  weep  in  the  theater  over  The  Capture 
of  Miletus,  and  they  prohibited  by  a  decree  the  repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  drama  because  it  aw~akened  the  mem¬ 
ory  of  domestic  misfortunes.  On  the  tribunal  the 
orator  was  forbidden  to  move  the  people  by  relating 
the  misfortunes  of  another  ;  but  here  also  customs 
were  more  powerful  than  laws.  The  accuser  employed 
the  least  justifiable  resources  of  art  and  hatred  to 
prejudice  the  judges  against  his  adversary.  It  would 
have  been  rigorous  to  deprive  the  accused  of  the  nat¬ 
ural  right  of  petition.  u  If  I  had  to  prosecute  Midias 
for  an  illegal  motion, —  for  being  an  unfaithful  ambas- 


DEMOSTHENES  —  THE  ORATOR. 


215 


sador  or  some  other  similar  crime, —  I  would  not  think 
myself  obliged  to  address  you  with  prayers,  persuaded 
then  that  the  part  of  the  accuser  was  to  furnish  proofs, 
that  of  the  accused  to  use  supplications.  But  *  *  * 
since  I  have  been  struck,  outraged  as  no  choregus  was 
ever  outraged  before,  *  *  *  I  will  not  hesitate  to  im¬ 
plore  you,  for,  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  say  it,  I  am  the 
accused,  since  a  want  of  judicial  satisfaction  makes  an 
intense  prejudice  press  upon  an  insulted  citizen.” 

Custom  tolerated  the  use  of  the  pathetic  in  orations, 
and  especially  permitted  the  accused  to  assist  his 
defender's  eloquence  by  affecting  the  judges  with  his 
tears.  Demosthenes  feared  the  effect  which  Midias’ 
lamentations  might  produce  upon  them.  “What  then 
remains  ?  Ah  !  by  Jupiter  !  compassion.  For  Midias 
will  present  his  young  children.  He  will  shed  tears, 
lie  will  supplicate  you  to  pardon  him  for  their  sake. 
This  is  his  last  resource.  But  (you  are  not  ignorant  of 
it)  piety  is  due  to  the  innocent  victim  of  intolerable 
severity,  not  to  the  culprit  who  is  justly  punished. 
Who  could  have  pity  on  the  children  of  Midias,  when 
he  has  not  had  pity  on  the  children  of  Straton  ?  ” 
Farther  on  the  orator  redoubled  his  efforts,  so  much 
did  he  wish  to  prevent  the  emotion  of  the  court.  u  He 
will  come,  I  know,  to  lament  with  his  children.  He 
will  express  the  most  humble  declarations.  He  will 
weep.  He  will  make  himself  as  miserable  as  possible. 
*  *  *  I  have  no  children  myself,  and  I  could  not,  by 
producing  them  here,  bewail  and  weep  over  the  out¬ 
rages  which  I  have  received.  It  is  therefore  rational 
to  treat  the  victim  less  favorably  than  the  prosecu¬ 
tor  ?  ”* 

The  poet  of  the  Wasps  has  not  forgotten  this  trait  of  customs  iu 
the  lawsuit  of  the  dog  Labes.  (Cf.  Racine,  Plaideurs ,  iii,  3.) 


216 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


The  impression  of  pity  was  much  more  powerful 
when  the  orator  was  accused  himself,  and  united  his 
pathetic  pleading  to  the  spectacle  of  his  family  in  tears. 
So  JEscliines  presented  his  whole  family  on  the  ros¬ 
trum  in  his  oration  On  the  Embassy.  Sometimes  the 
advocate,  respectful  toward  the  law,  entrusted  the  care 
of  exciting  pity  to  his  client.  u  Euxenippus,  I  came 
to  your  aid  as  far  as  I  was  able.  It  remains  only  to 
beseech  your  judges,  to  implore  the  assistance  of  your 
friends,  and  to  make  your  children  mount  this  place.” 
This  conclusion  of  Hyperides  is  according  to  Attic 
tradition,  and  conciliates  all.  The  same  design  to  har¬ 
monize  the  law  and  the  interests  of  the  pleaders  some¬ 
times  caused  the  orator,  in  the  midst  of  his  oration,  to 
dissimulate  pieces  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  pity. 
Demosthenes,  in  his  second  oration  Against  Ajphohus , 
paints  before  the  judges’  eyes  his  mother’s  grief,  her 
anxiety  for  the  issue  of  a  lawsuit  which  can  deprive 
her  of  her  last  resources,  and  prevent  her  from  marry¬ 
ing  her  only  daughter.  Tie  conjures  them  in  the  name 
of  their  wives,  their  children,  and  all  they  possess. 
Then  he  closes  with  a  phlegmatic  conclusion,  as  if  he 
wished  to  be  pardoned  for  having  shed  tears. 

Ho  man  at  Home  ever  thought  of  reproaching  Cicero 
for  his  pathos.  Æscliines  reproached  Demosthenes 
for  his;  he  marks  the  lamentable  tone  of  his  voice, 
the  expression  of  an  illegal  and  hypocritical  grief  in 
his  eyes.  Æscliines  would  have  been  pleased  to  see 
the  law  master  here,  and  to  see  Ctesiplion’s  defender 
deprived  of  one  of  the  greatest  resources  of  his  elo¬ 
quence.  Demosthenes,  far  from  abdicating,  used 
against  Æschines  all  his  right  to  pathos,  but  with  a 
violence  of  emotion  peculiar  to  him.  Pathos  was 
usually  born  in  him  from  an  elevation  of  sentiment; 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


217 


lie  charmed  the  soul  by  1ns  exaltation;  he  transported 
his  hearers  by  his  generosity  and  moral  reasoning. 
This  intense  passion,  constantly  springing  from  the 
bottom  of  his  heart,  seems  to  be  unconscious  of  itself, 
so  sincere  and  naïve  is  it.  “In  spite  of  the  passion 
that  carries  me  away,  I  perceive  that  water  is  going 
to  fail  me,  and  that  I  am  losing  my  way  in  orations 
and  recriminations  which  would  take  up  whole  days 
(Antidosis).”  The  author  of  the  ode  On  the  Conquest 
of  Namur  likewise  tells  us  of  the  “learned  and  sacred 
intoxication  ”  which  transports  him.  Demosthenes  did 
not  feel  conscious  of  his  transports  because  he  did 
not  seek  them. 

Æscliines  attributes  to  Demosthenes  this  pathetic 
interrogation:  “When  he  will  demand  of  you,  Athe¬ 
nians,  where  can  I  take  refuge,  etc.  *  *  *  ”  Farther 
on:  “When  at  the  close  of  his  oration  he  will  call 
near  him  the  accomplices  of  his  venality  to  defend 
him.  *  *  *  ”  There  is  nothing  like  this  in  the  ora¬ 
tion  On  the  Crown.  Æscliines  feigned  to  foresee  these 
oratorical  buoyancies,  in  order  to  have  the  advan¬ 
tage  of  using  them  and  of  bringing  around  the  tribune 
the  shades  of  Solon,  Aristides  and  Themistocles:  “Do 
vou  not  believe  that  the  warriors  who  died  at  Mara¬ 


thon  and  Platæa,  that  the  very  graves  of  our  ances¬ 
tors  would  wail,  if  the  man  who  confesses  that  he 
has  worked  against  Greece,  in  concert  with  the  bar¬ 
barians,  were  crowned?  ”  Ctesiplion’s  accuser  develops 
this  prosopopoeia  with  fervor  and  makes  it  effective  in 
the  close.  Demosthenes  is  sometimes  content  to  in¬ 
dicate  one  or  two  of  them  occasionally,  and  leaves 
the  care  of  reviving  their  ardor  to  his  hearers.  “When 
Midias,  surrounded  by  his  children,  will  entreat  you 
to  grant  them  his  acquittal,  then  imagine  that  you 


10 


218  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GEEECE. 

see  me  appear,  escorted  by  the  laws  and  your  oaths, 
begging  you,  soliciting  you  to  pronounce  in  their 
favor.”  “How,  consider,  reflect  how  just  the  indig¬ 
nation  of  these  illustrious  dead  would  be,  if  they  had 
any  idea  of  what  we  are  doing  to-day.”  (. Against 
Leptines.')  Reflection  is  here  closely  united  to  emo¬ 
tion,  and  this  alliance  well  measures  Demosthenes’ 
pathos.  His  prosopopœiæ  are  of  such  an  Attic  so¬ 
briety  that  they  could  find  place  in  a  pleading.  That 
which  closes  the  speech  against  Macartatus,  and  in 
which  Sositheus  evokes,  in  the  name  of  a  child,  all 
the  deaths  of  Buselus’  family,  is  by  far  the  longest 
and  most  touching  of  our  orator.  Demosthenes  knew 
better  than  any  other  man  the  common  sources  of 
pathos,  but  he’ disdained  to  draw  from  them.  “True 
eloquence  mocks  at  eloquence.”  (Pascal.) 

Demosthenes’  pathos  is  very  seldom  affecting.  Give 
this  material  to  Æschines, —  a  picture  of  the  desolation 
of  Phocis  in  ruins.  If  he  wished,  he  could  put  into  this 
picture  emotions  of  the  most  touching  sensibility.  The 
accent  of  Demosthenes’  soul  is  different;  he  discloses 
to  the  Athenians  the  source  of  the  catastrophe  of 
Phocis,  and  he  interrupts  his  exposition  with  this  cry: 
Shocking  and  pitiable  spectacle!  On  our  late  jour¬ 
ney  to  Delphi  we  were  compelled  to  see  it  all, —  houses 
razed  to  the  ground,  walls  demolished,  a  country 
stripped  of  its  adult  population;  a  few  poor  women, 
little  children,  and  miserable  old  men.  Ho  language 
can  do  justice  to  the  misery  now  existing  there;  and 
yet  I  hear  you  all  say  that  this  people  once  gave  a  neg¬ 
ative  vote  to  the  Thebans  on  the  question  of  enslaving 
us.  If  then,  your  ancestors,  Athenians,  could  return  to 
life,  wjiat  vote  or  judgment  would  they  pass  upon  the 
authors  of  this  destruction  of  Phocis  ?  In  my  opinion, 


DEMOSTHENES 


219 


THE  ORATOR. 

though  they  stoned  them  with  their  own  hands,  they 
would  consider  themselves  pure.  For  is  it  not  dis¬ 
graceful, —  is  it  not,  if  possible,  worse  than  disgrace¬ 
ful, —  that  people  who  had  then  saved  us,  who  gave 
their  vote  for  our  preservation,  should  have  met  with 
an  opposite  return  through  these  men,  and  be  suffered 
to  incur  greater  misfortunes  than  any  Greeks  ever 
knew  ?  Who,  then,  is  the  author  of  them  ?  Who  was 
the  deceiver  %  _Æscliines, —  who  but  he  ?  * 

Sentiments  of  national  dignity,  branding  of  ingrati¬ 
tude,  hatred  toward  the  traitor  Æsehines, —  these  are 
the  true  sources  of  Demosthenes’  pathos,  rather  than  the 
picture  of  the  misfortunes  of  Phocis,  or  another  similar 
subject  capable  of  exciting  pity. 

The  nature  of  the  conflict  which  he  supports  for  his 
public  life  is  “full  of  daily  struggles  and  sufferings,” 
and  his  own  nature  willed  it  to  be  so.  Demosthenes’ 
eloquence  is  the  image  of  his  character;  there  is  some¬ 
thing  rough  in  both.  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  attrib¬ 
utes  this  kind  of  roughness  to  a  scrupulous  imitation 
of  Thucydides’  style.  We  must  rather  find  its  source 
in  a  soul  whose  steadfastness  borders  upon  severity. 
Demosthenes  could  not  apply  to  himself  the  words  of 
Antigone:  “I  am  created  to  love,  not  to  hate.”  His 
incisive  words  can  better  accuse  than  defend,  f  ITer- 
mogenes  marks  its  biting  sharpness  (d/n/Arvjç)  ;  FEschi- 
nes  its  sharp  bitterness  (nzjod»v).  According  to  the  taste 
of  Ctesiphon’s  accuser,  Leodamas  the  Acharnian  had 
not  less  force  than  Demosthenes,  and  he  had  more 
pleasantness  ( r/diw *). 

*  Embassy,  §  G4. 

f  Only  two  of  his  civil  speeches  are  defensive.  One  For  Pliormio 
(he  had  even  pleaded  against  this  person  a  short  time  previous),  the 
other  For  Apollodorus,  on  the  subject  of  the  naval  crown. 


220 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Tliis  want  of  pleasantness  did  not  exclude  ingenuity 
in  our  orator.  Could  lie  have  been  an  Athenian  if  he 
had  no  ingenuity  ?  £  £  One  day  when  he  was  desiring  to 

address  a  large  meeting  in  the  city,  the  people  would  not 
have  heard  him  had  he  not  informed  them  that  he 
only  wished  to  tell  them  a  story.  Hearing  this,  they 
listened  to  him,  and  he  commenced  in  this  manner: 
“  Once  upon  a  time,”  he  said,  “there  was  a  man  who 
hired  an  ass  to  go  from  this  city  to  Megara.  About 
noon,  when  the  sun  was  burning  hot,  both  the  driver 
and  the  hirer  sought  the  shade  of  the  ass,  and  mutually 
hindered  each  other.  The  owner  said  that  the  traveler 
had  hired  his  ass,  and  not  its  shadow.  The  traveler,  in 
opposition  to  him,  maintained  that  the  whole  ass  was 
under  his  jurisdiction.”  Having  thus  commenced  his 
story,  he  withdrew.  The  people  recalled  him,  and 
begged  him  to  finish  the  story.  “  Ah,”  said  he,  “how 
eager  you  are  to  hear  a  story  about  an  ass’s  shadow, 
and  you  will  not  listen  when  I  speak  of  your  most  im¬ 
portant  affairs.” 

We  find  proofs  of  Demosthenes’  ingenuity  in  several 
passages  of  his  writings,  in  certain  untranslatable  deli¬ 
cacies  of  style,  in  which  the  art  of  the  Attics  is  sur¬ 
prised  by  a  play  on  words  of  different  shades  of  mean¬ 
ing,  by  passing  from  the  proper  to  the  figurative  sense; 
by  delighting  the  mind  with  refined  thoughts  and 
language,  accompanied  by  a  mixture  of  delicate  irony 
and  subtility.*  Sometimes  even  Athenian  taste  did 

*  Aristotle  ( Rhetoric ,  iii,  ii,  3)  cites  this  passage  from  Isocrates: 
TTjv  TÎjz  OaÀÀdrrjç  àpyrps  (empire)  àpyrpj  (principium)  elvac  rà)v 
y.ay.îüv.  Cf.  Oration  on  The  Chersonesus.  up.tby  uyiaiyovTiov  sound 
body),  si  ôrj  robç  rà  roiaùra  Tzoiobvraq  oytaisiv  (sound  mind)  <pv}<rcusv . 
Farther  on:  syuvr  àtpsÀéaOat  (destroying  tyrants)  ds tvo\  xai  -âvraq 


DEMOSTHENES 


221 


THE  ORATOR. 

not  recoil  before  puns,  if  they  can  be  so  considered. 
Aristophanes  is  prodigal  of  them.  Athenian  orators 
ventured  to  use  them  with  great  circumspection.  They 
meant  that  puns  and  ambiguities  (^.ww/ü'a)  should 
always  respect  the  law  of  urbanity  («<xt£?o!/).  Usually 
they  disdained  these  doubtful  pleasantries,  and  avoided 
them,  even  where  they  most  naturally  presented  them¬ 
selves.  Æscliines,  said  Demosthenes,  would  give  from 
his  blood ,  rather  than  from. his  oration /  and  Ctesi- 
plion’s  accuser,  in  his  turn,  said:  “This  man  has  on 
his  shoulders  not  a  head ,  but  a  source  of  revenues , —  a 
farm.”  Few  modern  men  would  have  resisted  the  temp¬ 
tation  to  replace  the  sayings  of  the  two  orators  by 
these:  he  would  give  his  blood  rather  than  his  water  ; 
he  lias  not  a  head ,  but  a  capitol.  A  commentator, 
chagrined  at  seeing  Æscliines  on  such  an  occasion, 
utterly  wanting  in  wit  a  la  Française,  effaces  the  word 
revenue  (-poeodov),  and  substitutes  for  it  capital  (xscpakawS). 
This  is  too  kind.  To  these  doubtful  niceties  the  Attics 
preferred  traits  after  Gorgias’  taste  :  “  A  little  sparrow 
had  dropped  some  excrements  from  its  stomach  upon 
him.”  The  sophist  raised  his  eyes  and  said:  “That 
is  not  fair  play,  O  Philomela”;  as  if  he  should  say  : 
“That  does  not  look  well,  princess.” 

Notwithstanding  the  delicacy  of  his  wit,  frequently 
ingenious,  Demosthenes  had  little  success  in  pleas¬ 
antry.  In  Cicero’s  judgment,  he  is  an  accomplished 
model  of  urbanity;  but  he  seems  to  have  ignored  the 
well  known  piquant  (< facetus )  playfulness  of  Lysias 
and  Hyperides.  According  to  the  author  of  the  fifth 

àvOpatTzouc;  eiç  khuOeptav  àfpsXéffOat  (to  charm,  to  excite  to  liberty) 
CTuc/xot.  Severe  Aristotle  himself  said  that  it  was  necessary  to  use 
epithets  as  seasoning,  not  as  food,  èdéffparc. 


222 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


of  the  letters  attributed  to  Æscliines,*  his  jests  never 
made  any  one  laugh  except  Ctesiphon.  Quintilian  was 
disposed  to  judge  them  in  like  manner  :  “They  show 
clearly  that  this  kind  of  wit  was  not  displeasing  to  him, 
but  that  nature  did  not  endow  him  with  it.”f  The 
author  of  Oratorical  Institutions  has  a  right  to  feel 
triumphant  here,  and  to  assert  that  Rome  surpassed 
Athens  in  pleasantry,  as  well  as  in  touching  pathos 
( miseratione  et  sali  bus  vincimus).  The  Greeks  can 
console  themselves  for  this  inferiority.  It  is  better  to 
be  wanting  in  that  talent  which  produces  laughter  than 
to  abuse  it  as  did  the  Roman  consul.  But  was  laughter 
of  so  high  a  value  at  the  Athenian  court  ?  There  was 
no  need  of  exciting  the  Athenians  by  it. 

The  pleasantries  of  Demosthenes  have  something 
peevish,  or  even  the  roughness  of  sarcasm.  Æschines 
is  ungrateful  for  attacking  Demosthenes,  for  he  fur¬ 
nished  him  a  living.  Without  devoted  citizens  who 
fight  against  the  Macedonian,  whence  would  the  hired 
orators  of  Philip  receive  their  revenues  ?  Demades 
one  day  said  to  him,  “That  Demosthenes  should  repri¬ 
mand  me  is  like  the  hog  governing  Minerva.”  “Ah,” 
said  Demosthenes,  “this  Minerva  was  caught  in  the  act 
of  adultery,  the  other  day,  near  Colyttus.”  Demos¬ 
thenes  defied  the  accomplices  of  Philocrates  to  come 
and  justify  themselves  on  the  rostrum.  Under  differ- 

*  The  pleading  against  Callicles,  a  suit  on  a  gutter,  contains  this 
passage:  “When  all  shall  have  been  drained  from  me,  the  water  will 
remain  with  me.  By  Jupiter!  what  will  I  do  with  this  water?  Will 
Callicles  force  me  to  drink  it?”  A  pick-pocket  named  Chalcous  was 
ridiculing  him  for  his  nightly  toils:  “I  understand  that  my  lighted 
lamp  vexed  you.  But,  Athenians,  do  not  be  surprised  by  all  the 
thefts  that  are  committed.  Our  thieves  are  of  brass  (jfaXxoùç)  and  our 
walls  of  clay.” 

f  Quintilian,  vi,  3.  (Cf.  Orator ,  20.) 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


223 


ent  pretexts,  no  one  appeared  there.  What  is  Phrynon’s 
pretext?  “He  has  a  son-in-law  in  Macedonia.”  This 
Phrynon  had  sent  his  son,  a  handsome  youth,  to  Philip. 
The  Athenians  readily  used  euphemisms.  A  euphem¬ 
istic  jurisconsult,  Tourreil,  called  an  exploit  a  stamped 
compliment  /  a  salary,  a  coined  gratitude.  Thus  Phil¬ 
ip’s  hirelings  at  Athens  were  his  guests ,  his  friends. 
The  household  flatterers  of  Dionysius,  living  at  his 
table,  when  they  did  not  die  from  his  fancies  (Atovuao- 
y.ûlay.sç),  were  called  artists  and  skillful  men  (rey'Araq), 
Sycophants  were  “curators  ( k-iixeAr^q )  of  public  and 
private  affairs.”  Thieves  and  pillagers,  or  brigands 
and  pirates,  modestly  declared  themselves  “men  who 
labor  to  acquire.”  Everybody  must  live,  and  poverty 
is  an  attenuating  circumstance.  Imperious  necessity 
confounds  all  ideas  of  what  is  allowed  and  prohibited. 
This  indulgence,  which  was  shown  by  Demosthenes  to 
needy  Charidemus,  is  an  oratorical  concession.  In  gen¬ 
eral,  he  sees  men  and  things  as  they  are  :  he  calls  a  cat 
a  cat,  and  Philocrates  a - . 

Even  his  praises  savor  of  rudeness.  One  of  his  col¬ 
leagues  on  the  embassy  to  Macedonia  extolled,  on  the 
rostrum  at  Athens,  Philip’s  marvelous  qualities.  De¬ 
mosthenes,  in  Philip’s  presence,  ridiculed  the  foolish 
flattery.  “I  have  not  praised  your  beauty,  —  the  most 
beautiful  of  beings  is  woman  ;  nor  your  ability  to  drink, — 
this  eulogy  is  due  to  a  sponge  ;  nor  your  memory, — this 
is  the  merit  of  a  sophist  who  deals  in  words.”  His 
unpremeditated  frankness  is  one  of  the  grievances  which 
Æschines  brings  against  him.  He  has  the  rusticity  of  a 
barbarian ,  like  the  Great  King,  writing  to  the  Athenians 
with  the  delicacy  of  a  crowned  Turcaret  :  “I  will  not 
give  you  gold  ;  do  not  ask  me  for  it  ;  you  shall  have 
none.”  His  abruptness  provoked  “before  the  deputies 


224 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


■* 

of  all  Greece  an  explosion  of  uncommon  laughter.” 
He  interrupts  the  people  with  great  cries  ;  he  is  a  Boeo¬ 
tian  (JiouoTtdZei)  worthy  of  sympathizing  with  that  coarse 
people.  Are  we  to  be  astonished  at  it?  He  is  a  Scyth¬ 
ian  (a  peasant  from  the  Danube)  by  his  mother,  not  an 
Athenian. 

It  is  seldom  that  Demosthenes’  irony  is  sufficiently 
free  from  passion  to  be  lively.  His  smiles  are  not 
malicious,  but  contracted  and  half  grimacing.  Another 
orator  would  have  chastised  with  a  lighter  hand  the 
cowardly  self-conceit  of  Midias  and  his  zeal,  which 
was  always  unseasonable.  If  the  danger  is  on  the 
sea,  Midias  procures  supplies  from  the  Egyptian  Pam- 
philus.  If  the  contest  is  to  be  tried  on  land,  Midias 
runs  to  the  assembly  and  loudly  promises  to  fit  out  a 
trireme.  He  is  always  just  where  there  is  no  danger. 
He  is  elected  hipparchus,  and  he  cannot  assist  in  a 
procession  on  horseback  without  losing  his  stirrup, 
and,  furthermore,  his  nag  is  borrowed.  Instead  of 
agreeably  enjoying  himself  at  the  expense  of  this  boast¬ 
ful  blunderhead,  Demosthenes  employs  in  the  recital 
of  his  subterfuges  the  epithets  of  covjcird ,  execrable 
man,  etc.  For  jocularity  he  substitutes  invective.  The 
author  of  Nicomachean  Ethics  allows  the  magnani¬ 
mous  to  use  scornful  irony.  Such  is  most  frequently 
that  of  Demosthenes.  Horace  played  with  the  human 
heart  by  pleasingly  ridiculing  its  weaknesses.  Juvenal 
vigorously  branded  its  vices.  The  same  difference 
distinguishes  our  orator  from  other  Attics  in  the  use 
of  irony.  Demosthenes’  irony  is  especially  indignant 
and  virulent. 

“  Evidently,  Æschines,  these  evils  move  you,  and  the  The¬ 
bans  inspire  you  with  pity, —  you,  who  have  lands  in  Bceotia 
and  who  cultivate  the  fields  of  which  they  were  robbed;  and 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


225 


I  rejoice, —  I,  whose  head  was  immediately  after  demanded 
by  the  author  of  these  disasters.”  *  *  *  “  By  such  a  language, 
you  miscreant,  while  of  the  deeds  of  our  ancestors  you  made 
sport  and  havoc  with  your  tongue,  you  ruined  all  our  affairs. 
And  out  of  all  this  you  are  a  land-owner  and  become  a  con¬ 
siderable  personage.  For  here  again  :  before  he  had  wronged 
the  state  so  grievously  he  acknowledged  that  he  had  been  a 
clerk  and  was  under  obligation  to  }’ou  for  electing  him,  and 
he  behaved  himself  with  decency;  but  since  he  has  wrought 
such  infinite  mischief  he  lias  drawn  up  his  eyebrows,  and  if 
any  one  says  ‘  the  ex-clerk  Æscliines,’  he  is  at  once  his  enemy 
and  says  he  has  been  slandered;  and  he  traverses  the  market 
with  his  robe  down  to  his  ankles,  walking  as  sharply  as  Pytho- 
cles,  puffing  out  his  cheeks:  —  one  of  the  friends  and  acquaint¬ 
ances  of  Philip  for  you.  That’s  what  he  is  now, —  one  of 
those  that  would  be  rid  of  the  people  and  regard  the  present 
establishment  as  a  raging  sea, —  he  that  formerly  worshiped 
the  dining-hall.”* 

Irony  is  a  resort  skillfully  managed  by  the  tragic 
poets.  In  them  it  is  sometimes  derisive,  as  in  the 
mouth  of  the  Nicomedes  of  Corneille  ;  sometimes  as 
bitter  as  in  Racine’s  Orestes.  Demosthenes  gives  to  his  a 
sort  of  dolorous  acriditv.  The  ancient  comedian  Archias 

o 

allured  Demosthenes  with  pleasing  words.  u  Quit 
your  asylum  ;  I  will  conduct  you  to  Antipater  ;  he  will 
do  you  no  harm.”  From  the  place  where  he  was  seated, 
Demosthenes  beheld  him.  “  Archias,  you  never  moved 
me  on  the  stage;  your  good  promises  will  not  move 
me  more  to-day.”  Archias  is  enraged  and  threatens: 

*  Embassy,  §  313;  Pro  Corona ,  §  41.  The  oration  On  Halonnesus 
is  animated  from  one  end  to  the  other  with  a  fine  irony  and  capricious 
spirit,  which  turns  those  acquainted  with  Demosthenes  from  attrib¬ 
uting  this  piece  to  him.  Demosthenes  would  have  commented  on 
Philip’s  letter  with  biting  penetration  and  an  acidity  very  remote 
from  the  liveliness  of  Hegesippus.  He  has  developed  almost  the 
same  ideas,  but  in  an  entirely  different  manner. 


226 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


“Now  you  speak  like  an  inspired  man,  on  the  Macedo¬ 
nian  tripod  (the  Macedonian  is  liis  oracle)  ;  a  moment 
ago  you  acted  the  part  of  a  comedian.” 

III.  He  that  would  gather  in  Demosthenes  all  the 
energetic  expressions  that  tend  to  place  the  object  be¬ 
fore  our  eyes,  would  have  to  transcribe  nearly  all  his 
writings.  His  intensity  is  often  born  of  brevity  : 
“In  live  days  only,  Æscliines  pronounced  his  false¬ 
hoods  ;  you  believed  them  ;  Pliocis  was  acquainted  with 
them,  surrendered  herself,  and  perished.”  It  is  also 
born  of  the  agitating  [kvspyowra)  image  that  paints  and 
communicates  life.  In  the  pleading  Against  Macar- 
tatus ,  he  says  that  he  at  first  thought  of  offering  to  the 
view  of  the  judges  a  genealogical  table  of  Agnias’  de¬ 
scendants  ;  “but  as  all,  and  especially  those  who  are 
farthest  from  me,  could  not  have  seen  it  distinctly,  I 
am  obliged  to  trace  it  orally  and  to  address  the  whole 
tribunal  at  once.”  The  orations  of  Demosthenes  are 
speaking  pictures;  living  paintings  and  striking  reliefs 
abound  in  them.  Rhetoricians  who  were  curious  to  cite 
models  of  liypotyposis,  had  a  rich  harvest  to  gather  from 
his  works.  Besides,  energy  seems  to  have  been  the 
common  quality  of  the  Attics  during  the  Macedonian 
period.  “  Hyperboles,”  says  Aristotle,  “are  becoming 
to  youth  and  to  wrath  ;  the  orators  of  Athens  make  very 
frequent  use  of  them.*’'  For  want  of  youthful  ardor, 
the  passions  excited  by  the  political  contests  during 
Philip’s  time  sufficed  to  suggest  bold  figures.  Even  a 
pure  Attic,  Lysias,  did  not  hesitate  to  write  in  a  funeral 
oration:  “It  is  just  that  Greece  be  shorn  (xsipaaOai)  on 
the  tomb  of  the  brave  who  perished  at  Salamis,  since 
her  liberty  was  buried  with  their  courage.”  Æsion,  a 
contemporary  of  Demosthenes,  could  allow  himself  this 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


227 


expression  :  The  Athenians  have  “  turned  their  city  into 
Sicily.”  Hegesippus  was  advising  them  to  exterminate 
Philip’s  partisans,  “if  you  have  your  brains  in  your 
heads  and  not  in  your  heels.” 

Demades  says  that  he  guides  the  wreck  of  the  repub¬ 
lic  (noXireOsffOat  -à  vauayta  t^ç  -6ha>^.  “The  news  of  the 
conqueror’s  death  creates  an  emotion  at  Athens. 
“Athenians,  Alexander  is  not  dead;  for  the  world 
would  be  filled  with  the  odor  from  liis  corse.”  (Dema¬ 
des.)  Hyperides  was  reproached  for  an  illegal  motion. 
“It  is  not  I  who  made  this  proposition  ;  it  is  the  battle 
of  Chæronea.  Did  you  not  see  the  laws  which  forbade 
it?  The  arms  of  the  Macedonians,  veiling  them  with 
their  shadows  ( è-co/.ôrei ),  concealed  them  from  my  view.” 
Demosthenes  “is  composed  of  words,  *  *  *  deprive 
him  of  his  tongue,  and  he  will  then  become  a  mere  flute 
without  a  mouthpiece.”  (Æscliines.)  The  greater  por¬ 
tion  of  Demosthenes’  expressions,  which  are  cited  by 
Æschines,  are  not  found  in  liis  harangues  ;  they  are 
usually  improvised  sallies  that  owe  even  the  privilege 
of  having  struck  his  rival’s  memory  to  their  vigor. 

Cicero  permits  the  orator  to  use  expressions  almost 
poetic  ( verba  jpvope  poetarum).  Aristotle,  less  indul¬ 
gent,  censured  as  poetic  a  number  of  terms  and  images 
which  the  scrupulous  Isocrates  himself  would  undoubt¬ 
edly  have  accepted.  He  does  not  wish  that  we  should 
say:  “Philosophy  is  the  bulwark  of  laws.”  “You 
have  sown  shame;  you  have  reaped  misfortune.”  So 
Voltaire,  in  an  emotion  of  ill  humor  against  J.  J.  Rous¬ 
seau,  saw  an  example  of  “excessive  extravagance” 
into  which  the  “would-be  wits”  fall  while  moved  by 
“a  mania  for  making  themselves  singular.”  It  was  in 
this  image:  “I  was  cultivating  hope,  and  I  saw  it  fade 
every  day.”  The  author  of  the  Philosophical  Pic- 


228 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


tionary  is  here  more  Attic  than  Demosthenes  himself 
would  have  been.  His  poetical  figures  are  numerous, 
and  he  often  borrows  them  from  scenes  of  nature.  The 
audacious  Python  launches  against  the  assembly  floods 
of  impetuous  eloquence  (jtoXXü  pèovri).  Without  the 
reveille  of  the  Thebans  the  burden  of  the  war  would 
have  fallen  upon  Athens  like  a  torrent  in  winter 
(yjt/j.âppouç').  If  a  reverse  befalls  the  city,  Æscliines 
immediately  starts  from  his  repose,  like  a  sudden  gust 
of  wind  ( co<7-ep  Tt'Æopa  w;e<pdvr)).  Philip’s  attack  is  ua 
liail-storm  that  ruins  the  harvest.”  “This  decree  (of 
alliance  with  Thebes)  expelled  the  danger  which  en¬ 
veloped  the  city  like  a  cloud.”*  Cicero  extolled  this 
merit  in  Demosthenes’  elocution:  “The  frequent  use 
of  metaphors  is,  in  the  eyes  of  certain  critics,  the  prin¬ 
cipal  merit  of  his  eloquence;  and,  in  fact,  we  rarely 
find  a  passage  in  his  works  in  which  his  ideas  are  not 
introduced  in  a  salient  form;  yet  he  is  the  only  orator 
who  knows  how  to  give  to  all,  or  at  least  to  nearly  all 
his  thoughts  a  lively  turn  and  a  luminous  splendor.  ”f 
Demosthenes  owes  the  picturesque  relief  of  his  style 
to  the  vivacity  of  his  imagination  and  also  to  the  ge¬ 
nius  of  his  colored  and  expressive  mother-tongue.  The 
Greeks  made  it  in  their  own  image,  and  handled  it  as 
a  painter  handles  his  brush.  J 

*  Touto  to  (prj<p tafia  rov  tote  ry  tîoXsc  TZEpiaravra  xîvôuvov  i:ap- 
eXOs'tv  ènoirjffev,  œazzsp  vépoç.  ( Pro  Corona .) 

f  Cicero,  Orator,  39  ;  De  Oratore ,  i,  28.  “  L’éloquence  est  une  pein¬ 
ture  de  la  pensée.”  (Pascal.) 

X  The  carelessness  of  the  Athenians  will  be  a  breakneck  for  them 
( èxTpayrjXaffOjjvat ).  The  Byzantians  would  have  submitted  to  all, 
swallowed  (ela^prjaeaOac)  all,  rather  than  fall  into  the  hands  of  Philip. 
This  prince  was  sounding  the  Hellenes  with  a  golden  probe  (diexiu- 
dcb'xi^e.  This  word  properly  signifies  to  test  a  spirited  horse  by  the 
sound  of  liand-bells,  and  it  suggests  the  idea  of  jingling  pieces  of 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


229 


The  coarseness  of  Demosthenes’  images  did  not  al¬ 
ways  find  grace  before  Æschines.  He  mentions  sev¬ 
eral  which  the  vivacity  of  improvisation  alone  could 
justify.  “  Do  you  not  remember  his  odious  and  in¬ 
credible  words  ?  How  could  you  ever  patiently  toler¬ 
ate  them,  O  men  of  iron  ?  He  said  to  you  from  this 
tribune:  They  nip  the  buds  of  the  republic;  they  cut 
off  the  sprouts  of  democracy  ;  they  have  broken  off  the 
nerves  of  our  resources .  We  are  packed  up  in  a  bundle 
and  sewed  into  straw  mats.  They  pierce  us  as  with  lard¬ 
ing -pins.  *  From  wdiom  are  these  expressions,  shock¬ 
ing  beast,  or  rather  these  monsters  of  language  ?  ” 
Cicero  condemned  images  that  were  less  bold.  “The 
African’s  death  has  deprived  the  republic  of  its  genera¬ 
tive  power  (castratam)  ;  Glaucia,  the  excrements  of  the 
senate  ( stercus  curiœ)f\  and  nevertheless  he  pleaded 
attenuating  circumstances  in  favor  of  Demosthenes. 
It  is  easy,  said  he,  to  coolly  catch  a  word  of  fire  and 
turn  it  into  derision  when  the  aroused  minds  of  the 
hearers  have  had  time  to  grow  cool;  but  do  not  these 
temerities  of  language  find  their  excuse  in  the  pas¬ 
sionate  heat  of  debate?  Pliny  the  Younger,  a  man 
of  talent  and  very  desirous  in  his  letters  to  follow 
Cicero  step  by  step,  recalled  this  passage  of  the  Ora¬ 
tor.  lie  justifies  some  of  his  expressions,  which  are 
“inflated  and  violent”  according  to  the  judgment  of 
his  correspondent  Lupercus,  but  which  are  “auda¬ 
cious,  full  of  intelligence  and  sublime,”  according  to 

gold  in  the  ears  of  the  Greeks.  The  least  reverse  suffices  to  over¬ 
throw  all,  àveyaiTiae.  This  is  said  of  a  horse  that  capers  and  throws 
off  his  rider  by  shaking  his  mane  (youry).  It  would  be  easy  to  mul¬ 
tiply  these  examples. 

*  TWç  rà  (Tzsvà  (j: (no y ~ <)'/)  wansp  ràç  fte/.ôvaç  dcsipoufft. 

t  De  Oratore ,  iii,  41  ;  Orator ,  8. 


230 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


the  author’s  taste.  He  alleges  the  examples  of  Homer, 
Æschines,  and  Demosthenes,  and  he  extols  the  “daz¬ 
zling  grandeur”*  of  those  traits  which  Ctesiphon’s  ac¬ 
cuser  has  censured.  The  fragments  of  Demosthenes 
which  Pliny  cites  certainly  deserve  this  eulogy;  but 
who  will  dare  to  confer  it  on  the  comparison  of  the 
larding-pins,  which  indeed  is  not  Attic  ? 

Antithesis  is  often  employed  in  Demosthenes’  plead¬ 
ings.  It  tends  to  brevity  by  rapidly  placing  face  to 
face  two  ideas  which  the  clepsydra  did  not  always 
permit  him  to  develop.  Thus  the  pleading  Foi *  Apol- 
lodorus  contains  two  antitheses,  which  recapitulate  it 
with  great  effect.  Demosthenes’  antitheses  never  have 
false  windows ,  designed  for  symmetry.  “What  I 
fear  is,  not  that  Philip  may  be  living,  but  that  the 
hatred  toward  the  prevaricators,  and  the  eagerness  to 
punish  them,  may  be  dead  in  the  heart  of  the  state.” 
The  antithesis,  or  contrast  of  things,  is  one  of  his  favor¬ 
ite  methods.  An  almost  continual  parallel  is  estab¬ 
lished,  in  the  orations  On  the  Embassy  and  On  the 
Crown ,  between  the  birth,  education,  family,  private 
and  public  life,  of  the  two  adversaries.  The  bright 
and  clear  light  of  Attica  gave  the  Athenians  a  taste  for 
luminous  relief.  Demosthenes,  in  this  respect,  knew 
the  force  of  parallels  and  did  not  conceal 

his  intention  to  profit  by  them.  “With  my  conduct 
compare  theirs.  Light  will  shine  from  this  parallel.  ”f 

We  will  conclude  these  remarks  on  Demosthenes’ 
elocution  with  the  citation  of  a  page  which  reproduces 
some  of  the  traits  of  the  expressive  physiognomy  of 
his  eloquence. 

*  Granditas  elucet.  ( Letters ,  ix,  2G.) 

f  This  taste  for  contrasts  was  practiced  by  the  comic  poets.  Ti- 
mocles  calls  him  “a  man  who  dislikes  orations  ancT  never  made  an 
antithesis.” 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


231 


“  What  matters,  they  will  say,  the  loss  of  Serrhium,  of 
Doriscus  ?  Let  these  insignificant  spoils  accumulate.  They 
will  finally  raise  themselves  to  a  disastrous  ‘  sum-total.1  Do 
you  believe  you  are  wise  in  purchasing  peace  at  the  cost  of 
such  concessions?  ‘I  fear  that  some  day,  like  imprudent 
borrowers,  who  procure  passing  ease  at  large  interest,  and 
consequently  see  themselves  deprived  even  of  their  patri¬ 
mony,  we,  also,  will  pay  dearly  for  our  indolence;  and  that, 
for  having  devoted  all  to  pleasure,  we  will  sooner  or  later 
undergo  the  necessity  of  suffering  many  hardships  to  which 
we  formerly  objected,  and  of  trembling  for  the  very  soil  of 
our  country.*  *  *  *  You  must,  Athenians,  from  to-day,  shake 
off  this  weakness.  See  how  far  this  man  has  pushed  his  arro¬ 
gance.  He  does  not  even  now  leave  you  a  choice  between 
action  and  repose.  He  threatens.  He  utters,  they  say,  inso¬ 
lent  speeches.  Incapable  of  contenting  himself  with  what  he 
has  captured,  he  surrounds  himself  each  day  with  a  rampart 
of  new  conquests,  and  while  we  are  remaining  inactive,  he  is 
encircling  us  and  infesting  us  on  all  sides. 

When  then,  Athenians,  when,  pray,  will  you  do  your  duty? 
What  are  you  waiting  for, —  an  event?  necessity?  But  what 
other  understanding  can  you  have  of  what  is  passing  before 
our  eyes?  As  for  me,  I  know  of  no  more  pressing  necessity 
for  free  men  than  dishonor.  Tell  me,  will  you  always  go  to 
and  fro  on  the  public  square,  asking  each  other  ‘  What  is  the 
news?  1  Ah!  what  news  could  be  greater  than  that  a  Mace¬ 
donian  is  the  conqueror  of  Athens,  and  the  ruler  of  Greece? 
‘Is  Philip  dead?  No,  her  is  sick.’  What  difference  is  it  to 
you  whether  he  is  dead  or  sick?  If  any  misfortune  has  be¬ 
fallen  him,  you  will  very  soon  make  another  Philip,  with  the 
vigilance  which  you  now  use  in  your  affairs.” 

IY.  The  disposition  of  Demosthenes’  plans  sometimes 
needs  more  light.  Exactitude  of  method  is  one  of  the 
superiorities  which  modern  men  manifest  over  the 

*  First  Olynthiac.  “  Si  noies  sanus,  curres  hydropicus.”  (Horace.) 


232 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


ancients.  The  admirers  of  antiquity  had  a  giant  task 
to  sustain,  in  the  time  of  Charles  Perrault,  when 
they  undertook  to  prove  that  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey 
left  nothing  to  be  desired  as  a  composition.  The  in¬ 
telligent  admirers  of  Homer  could  allege  the  differ¬ 
ence  of  taste  in  former  ages  and  in  our  own;  and  in 
fact,  a  modern  tragedy  similar  to  Sophocles’  Ajax 
would  not  escape  criticism.  With  us  the  drama  ends 
with  the  death  of  the  hero:  the  Greeks  heard  with 
delight  the  four  hundred  verses  (more  than  one-fourth 
of  the  tragedy)  which  survived  the  true  conclusion. 
Ho  doubt  they  were  less  moved  than  we  by  tjie  in¬ 
distinctness  in  the  canvas  of  one  of  Demosthenes’ 
works.  What  is,  in  detail,  the  plan  of  the  oration  On 
the  Crown ,  or  more  particularly  the  plan  of  the  oration 
On  the  Embassy  f  The  critics  contend  over  this  ques¬ 
tion:  instead  of  examining  the  diverse  opinions  ex¬ 
pressed  in  this  debate,  we  will  substitute  a  certain 
number  of  incontestable  observations,  suggested  by  an 
assiduous  reading  of  the  orator. 

Would  Demosthenes,  an  accomplished  artist,  have 
cheerfully  deprived  his  master-piece,  worked  with 
jealous  care,  of  one  of  the  essential  forms  of  literary 
beauty, — that  of  order  ?  We  cannot  admit  it,  especially 
when  we  see  him  so  eager  to  give  the  merit  of  dis¬ 
position  to  simple  sentences.  Each  of  the  stones 
whose  combination  will  constitute  the  oratorical  edi¬ 
fice  is  hewed  by  Demosthenes  with  admirable  art. 
This  same  art  presides  over  the  formation  of  groups 
which  are  born  from  their  assemblage.  In  consequence 
of  this  wise  structure,  the  group,  or  partial  develop¬ 
ment,  forms  a  little  harangue  which  has  its  own  com¬ 
mencement,  its  middle  and  its  end;  it  constitutes  an 
organized  and  complete  body.  Why  is  the  organism 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


233 


of  the  whole  work  less  striking,  and  so  incommo¬ 
dious  as  to  disjoint  it  ?  It  is  because  the  ordinary 
method  yields  to  a  superior  art,  which  disregards 
those  rules  of  convenience  in  order  to  attain  effects 
which  rules  could  never  teach.*  Modern  critics  ex¬ 
pect  to  find  in  the  Pro  Corona  a  plan  designed  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  prescriptions  of  the  rhetoricians,  and 
they  do  not  find  it  there.  Who  is  at  fault  ?  Some¬ 
times,  by  a  wrong  method  they  imagine  they  have  dis¬ 
covered  between  certain  parts  of  the  work  mysteri¬ 
ous  lines  which  do  not  exist;  is  the  orator  responsi¬ 
ble  for  their  fancies  ?  He  did  not  always  disclose 
his  secrets  to  them;  it  was  their  duty  to  discover 
them.  Demosthenes  has  not  always  a  regular  plan; 
he  has  a  wise  disposition,  which  is  justified  by  a  de¬ 
termined  and  premediated  design,  not  on  the  obser¬ 
vation  of  common  practices,  but  on  the  effect  to  be 
produced.  Thus  the  artists  to  whom  we  owe  the 
wonderful  beauty  of  the  Parthenon  allowed  the 
columns  to  deviate  from  the  perpendicular;  they  con¬ 
tracted  certain  parts  of  the  monument’s  ornamenta¬ 
tion;  they  diminished  the  intervals  progressively, 
altered  the  rectilinear  surfaces,  to  attain  certain  de¬ 
lusions  of  perspective;  the  right  line  is  not  always 
the  shortest  line  to  lead  to  the  accomplishment  of 
art.  Demosthenes,  like  the  Athenian  architects,  used 
inclined  planes  and  curves:  he  was  justifiable. 

The  great  compositions  of  the  deliberative  class  are 
not  bound  to  the  same  exactitude  as  the  works  of  the 
bar.  An  Athenian  lawyer’s  speech  had  to  present  a  sim- 

*  It  is  instructive  to  study,  in  this  respect,  one  page  of  the  Oration 
on  the  Chersonesus.  In  noting  the  words:  Ttpwrov  *  *  *  yvœvat, 
*  *  *  ôsùrepov  eiôévou,  then  eiôâraç  *  *  *  t yvtoxéra?  we  can  see 
with  what  care  he  arranges  his  words. 

10* 


234 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


pie  and  clear  order.  On  tliis  condition  alone  the  client 
could  trust  it  to  his  memory.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
little  design,  easy  to  be  seen  at  a  glance,  must  be  elab¬ 
orated  more  exactly  in  its  lines  than  a  large  picture  rich 
with  episodes,  and  whose  learned  complexity  is  destined 
to  produce  a  powerful  effect  of  harmony.  These  large 
canvases  object  to  a  close  examination;  smaller  draw¬ 
ings  ought  to  be  able  to  endure  the  indiscreet  curiosity 
of  the  glass.  The  political  oration  is  better  adapted  to 
be  heard  than  to  be  read;  The  reader,  master  of  his 
own  time  and  of  himself,  wishes  to  taste  all  at  his  lei¬ 
sure,  and  to  take  everything  into  consideration.  While 
reading  he  analyzes  his  impressions  and  the  different 
qualities  of  the  work;  he  sometimes  even  rests  to  pene 
trate  it  more  thoroughly.  The  hearer,  less  exacting,  only 
asks  to  be  convinced  and  entertained;  he  especially 
desires  emotion,  action,  sensible  and  repeated  state¬ 
ments.  Now,  these  redoubled  expressions  will  be 
given  him  by  the  rich  succession  of  arguments  and 
passions,  of  which  the,  mass  (o/A«ç)  of  the  political  ora¬ 
tion  is  composed.  If  the  orator  succeeds  in  proving 
and  affecting,  without  following  a  plan  of  irreproacha¬ 
ble  regularity,  his  success  acquits  the  wTriter.  A  baker 
asked  whether  he  should  make  the  nie  hard  or  soft. 

i 

“  Can  you  not  make  it  good  ?”  *  “  Demosthenes,  says 

Ulpian,  does  not  follow  method,  but  he  is  guided  by 
what  is  advantageous.”  If  without  method  he  wins 
our  suffrages,  what  more  can  we  ask  ?  All’s  well  that 
ends  well.  -  . 

According  to  their  own  criticisms,  Æschines  and 
Demosthenes  delivered  “confused  and  embroiled  ora¬ 
tions.”  The  two  orators  gave  this  criticism  precisely 
to  the  passages  of  their  harangues  in  which  they  were 

*  Aristotle,  Rhetoric ,  iii,  1G.  (Cf.  Horace,  Ad  Pisones.) 


DEMOSTHENES  —  THE  ORATOR. 


235 


the  clearest,— too  clear,  in  fact,  to  suit  the  adversary’s 
will.  These  are  tactics  addressed  to  the  judges.  They 
wish  to  persuade  the  judges  that  they  have  not  clearly 
heard  the  orator,  when  they  have  comprehended  him 
perfectly. 

Let  us  not,  therefore,  believe  their  criticism.  Æscbi- 
nes  (and  on  this  point  he  does  himself  justice)  contrasts 
the  order  and  clearness  of  his  oration  with  Demosthe¬ 
nes''  premeditated  and  artificial  confusion.  He  an¬ 
nounces  a  luminous  (vfKpltnspuv}  exposition  of  his  ene¬ 
my’s  iniquities;  he  intends  that  there  should  be  “no 
difficulty  in  following  him.”  In  fact,  the  plan  of  the 
oration  Against  Ctesijphon  is  neatly  traced  and  faith¬ 
fully  followed.*  That  of  the  speech  Against  Aristoc¬ 
rates,  one  of  Demosthenes’  most  remarkable  speeches, 
is  equally  irreproachable  in  this  respect.  Usually, 
however,  his  manner  is  less  methodic  than  that  of Æs- 
chines,  Hyperides,  or  Isocrates.  He  indicates  an  idea 
and  sets  it  aside;  later  he  returns  and  develops  it;  he 

*Æschines  pretends  to  have  formed  tlic  plan  of  the  third  part  of 
his  oration  on  that  which  he  knew  ought  to  be  adopted  by  Demosthe¬ 
nes.  Demosthenes  will  divide  his  administration  into  four  periods. 
Æschines  then  examines  these  four  periods  successively.  The  truth 
is  that  there  is  no  relation  between  the  speeches  of  the  two  adversa¬ 
ries,  either  in  the  disposition  of  the  whole,  or  in  the  development  of 
parts.  In  his  oration  Æschines  has  followed  an  order  which  differs 
from  that  of  the  act  of  accusation  ;  now,  it  is  to  the  order  of  the  act  of 
accusation  that  Demosthenes  devotes  himself  in  his  defense.  The 
portion  of  Demosthenes’  oration  which  is  devoted  to  the  apology  of 
his  ministry  offers  no  trace  of  the  four  epochs  mentioned  by  his 
accuser.  Why,  then,  has  Æschines  attributed  to  him  a  plan  which 
exists  only  in  his  own  imagination  ?  Is  the  object  of  this  disguise  to 
show  that  he  docs  not  fear  to  follow  him  over  the  ground  of  his  own 
choice?  Elsewhere  he  attributes  in  advance  to  Demosthenes  pathetic 
apostrophes  which  Demosthenes  did  not  use.  This  gratuitous  fic¬ 
tion  gives  him  an  opportunity  for  sharp  replies.  This  is  the  whole 
secret  of  his  artifice. 


236 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


announces  a  proof,  and  lie  delays  to  give  it;  lie  com¬ 
mences  a  contrast,  and  lie  stops  in  the  midst  of  it.  He 
marks  out  the  plan  which  he  says  he  intends  to  follow, 
and  he  does  not  follow  it  (. Against  Timocrates ,  second 
part).  Demosthenes  draws  strong  general  lines  which 
divide  the  subject  into  its  essential  parts,  but  that  which 
fills  up  the  intervals  is  disposed  of  without  rigorous 
order.  Occasionally  he  recapitulates  forementioned 
grievances  and  demonstrated  facts.  These  landmarks, 
these  beacons  indicating  the  route  already  passed  and 
that  which  remains  to  be  traveled,  are  not  superfluous. 
The  orator  frequently  leaves  his  road  to  toil  on  the 
right  and  left  in  foot-paths  where  he  neither  loses  his 
time  nor  his  pains,  for  they  forward  him  to  the  desired 
end;  but  instead  of  a  straight  line,  they  are  windings 
and  turns  to  and  fro,  like  those  of  a  free  improvisation. 
u  But  let  us  speak  of  the  decree  of  invitation  (to  the 
feast  of  the  Prytaneum);  I  had  almost  forgotten  this 
point,  one  of  the  most  important  of  my  cause.* 

If  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  follow  Demosthenes  in 
the  windings  of  his  plan,  it  is  always  easy  to  compre¬ 
hend  the  ruling  idea  of  his  orations.  Every  one  of 
them  is  inspired  by  a  dominant  thought — the  soul  of 
the  entire  composition.  Thus  the  oration  On  the  Crown 
is  summed  up  in  the  lines  which  form  the  epigraph  to 
the  work.  This  unity  of  principal  thought  and  com¬ 
municated  expression  makes  the  true  unity  of  the  ora¬ 
tion.  Demosthenes,  an  obstinate  and  tenacious  orator, 

*  These  artifices  of  the  orator  are  frequent.  “  Clerk,  take  again  the 
decree  in  favor  of  Chabrias;  look  it  up,  search  for  it;  it  ought  to  be 
here  somewhere”  [Against  Leptines ),  and  especially  Against  Aris¬ 
tocrates.  Cicero  imitates  the  Greeks  even  in  these  little  tricks.  “  These 
two  statues  are  called  Canephores.  “  But  the  artist  *  *  *  who  is  he, — 
who,  pray?  *  *  *  You  are  right;  it  is  Polycletus.”  (Verrines,  De 
Sigriis,  iv,  3.) 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


237 


does  not  wish  to  appear  such.  He  insists  on  determin¬ 
ing  proofs,  but  not  at  once  ;  he  leaves  them  and  returns 
to  them  again.  When  the  hearer  has  once  been  drawn 
over  to  that  point  which  pleases  him,  he  knows  how  to 
hold  him  there  without  fatiguing  him  with  monotonous 
repetitions.  On  the  contrary,  he  studies  to  dissimulate 
the  persistence  of  his  means  under  a  variety  of  forms 
and  skillful  weaving.  His  plans  do  not  form  a  chain, 
but  a  net  which  Yulcan  would  not  have  disowned. 

Demosthenes’  composition  resembles  the  open  order 
of  military  tactics.  It  is  not  the  regular  disposition  of 
a  regiment  in  files,  marching  with  uniformity  and  sym¬ 
metry,  with  all  its  detachments  in  their  regulated  posi¬ 
tions.  His  exordiums,  we  have  seen,  never  have  those 
showy  plumes  with  which  studied  orations  are  wont  to 
be  adorned.  Narration,  confirmation  and  refutation 
take  part  in  the  conflict  like  irregular  troops,  without 
any  precise  method  ;  the  peroration  is  everywhere  at 
the  same  time,  like  a  good  general  animating  all  with 
his  presence.  The  entire  harangue  is  a  legion  dispersed 
into  sharp-shooters,  advancing,  retreating,  obliquing  to 
the  right  and  left,  according  to  the  accidents  of  the 
ground  and  the  necessities  of  the  contest.  All  argu¬ 
ments,  like  scattered  soldiers,  concur  in  the  same  action; 
strike  the  same  enemy,  obey  the  same  directing  thought; 
but  how  far  is  it  from  the  order  of  parade!  The  scru¬ 
pulous  observation  of  the  rules  of  art  is  here  subordi¬ 
nated  to  the  requirements  of  the  action.  The  art,  the 
only  necessary  art,  is  the  art  to  conquer. 

The  liberty  of  Demosthenes’  plans  belongs  to  a  per¬ 
sonal  cause,  the  orator’s  genius;  and  to  general  causes, 
the  traditional  customs  of  Attic  eloquence.  Diversions 
were  familiar  to  them  (in  spite  of  the  law  which  forbade 


238 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


them  to  wander  from  tlieir  subject),  but  especially  an¬ 
ticipated  refutations,  written  after  the  charge. 

The  composition  of  Æschines’  oration  Against  Ctesi- 
jphon  seems  to  us  irreproachable,  save  some  long  tirades 
in  the  second  part,  due  to  this  process  of  prolepsis.  In 
general,  the  harangues  exchanged  between  Æschines 
and  Demosthenes,  are,  as  a  whole,  attacks  and  replies  ; 
or  replies  and  rejoinders  at  the  same  time.  They  fin¬ 
ished  them  after  the  debate,  according  to  the  means 
employed  by  the  adversary.  These  additions,  after 
important  inlaid  work,  are  as  so  many  incumbering 
overcharges  ;  they  destroy  the  economy  of  the  primi¬ 
tive  oration,  and  are  prejudicial  to  the  simplicity  and 
purity  of  the  composition.  Two  works  kneaded  together 
cannot  have  the  harmonious  homogeneity  of  one  work 
moulded  by  a  single  cast. 

Demosthenes  was  asked,  What  is  the  first  quality 
of  the  orator?  —  action.  And  the  second?  —  action. 
And  the  third?  —  still,  action.  This  remark  clearly 
proves  that  Demosthenes  had  suffered  from  the  imper¬ 
fections  of  his  own  action.  Action,  u  the  eloquence  of 
the  bodv”*  had  for  a  long  time  been  somewhat  de- 
fective  in  Demosthenes.  Whence  the  obstacles  that 
at  first  discouraged  him:  u  Of  all  orators,  I  take  the 
most  pains;  I  have  almost  exhausted  my  powers  in 
training  myself  for  eloquence,  and  with  all  that,  I 
cannot  make  myself  agreeable  to  the  people.  Igno¬ 
rant  sailors  and  drunkards  occupy  the  rostrum,  and 
they  are  heard  while  I  am  disdained.”  The  comedian 
Satyrus  knew  the  cause  of  the  evil,  and  prescribed  a 
remedy  for  him.  lie  made  Demosthenes  recite,  then 
recited  himself,  some  verses  from  Euripides.  Demos¬ 
thenes  was  struck  with  the  different  effects  which  they 

*  “  Quasi  sermo  corporis.”  [De  Oratore ,  iii,  59.) 


DEMOSTHENES 


239 


TIIE  ORATOR. 

produced  when  spoken  by  himself  and  by  his  friend. 
He  saw  the  power  of  the  art  of  declamation,  and, 
at  the  cost  of  an  obstinate  struggle,  he  succeeded  in 
acquiring  it;  without,  however,  correcting  his  action 
in  a  certain  impetuosity,  the  object  of  Æschines’  crit¬ 
icism. 

At  Rome,  an  orator  might  make  use  of  the  most 
vehement  gestures;  he  could  touch  the  earth*  with¬ 
out  wounding  the  taste  of  connoisseurs.  Attic  Æs¬ 
chines,  a  constant  attendant  at  the  palæstra,  reproaches 
his  rival  for  not  frequenting  it.  Demosthenes  might 
there  have  acquired  a  measured  suppleness,  a  har¬ 
monious  proportion  of  movements, —  that  grace  and 
dignity  of  attitude  so  admired  by  the  Greeks.  In¬ 
stead  of  that  he  preserved  the  habit  of  sharp  and 
violent  movements.  He  does  not  mount  the  rostrum, 
he  jumps  ((bs-rjdyffsv)  on  it;  he  does  not  present  him¬ 
self  to  the  ecclesia ,  he  rushes  on  it.  Do  not  expect 
that  he,  like  Pericles,  will  hold  his  hand  under  his 
cloak;  calm  on  the  rostrum,  and  as  erect  as  the  statue 
of  Apollo.  He  leaves  this  bearing  to  Solon,  the 
personified  moderation  of  ancient  orators;  he  prefers 
gestures  as  irregular  as  his  conduct.  On  the  rostrum 
he  throws  himself  to  the  right  and  then  to  the  left 
(xu/j.oj  Treptôtvûv  (7tauzox)\  lie  becomes  as  enraged  as  a 
wild  beast  ( OrjpU »). 

In  his  Discours  de  Deception  to  the  French  Academy, 
Buffon  has  painted  in  lively  colors  the  eloquence  of 
action  that  “  speaks  to  the  body,”  and  that  which, 
born  of  the  soul  and  thought,  speaks  to  the  soul 
and  mind.  Demosthenes,  master  of  these  two  elo¬ 
quences,  united  the  charm  of  action  with  that  of  con¬ 
viction  and  passion.  Imagine  him  standing  on  the 


*  Vidi  Antonium  terrain  tangere.  (Cicero.) 


240 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


rostrum,  animated  with  indignation  against  a  miser¬ 
able  accuser,  full  of  noble  thoughts  and  generous 
sentiments  due  to  the  memory  of  his  ancestors,  hav¬ 
ing  completely  in  his  power  the  double  pathos  of 
gestures  and  speech,  and  we  can  then  have  some  idea 
of  the  transports  which  such  words  as  the  following 
produced  on  a  sensitive  people  : 

“  Such  was  the  commencement  and  first  step  in  the  re¬ 
conciliation  of  Athens  and  Thebes.  Before  then  the  countries 
had  been  led  by  these  men  into  discord,  hatred  and  jeal¬ 
ousy.  *  *  *  As  to  me,  I  have  confidence  enough  to  say,  If 
anyone  now  can  point  out  a  better  course,  or,  indeed,  if  any 
other  was  practicable  but  the  one  which  I  adopted,  I  con¬ 
fess  that  I  was  wrong.  For  if  there  be  any  measure  now 
discovered  which  (executed  then)  would  have  been  to  our 
advantage,  I  say  it  ought  not  to  have  escaped  me.  But  if 
there  is  none,  if  there  was  none,  if  none  can  be  suggested 
even  at  this  day,  what  was  a  statesman  to  do?  Was  he  not 
to  choose  the  best  measures  within  his  reach  and  view? 
That  did  I,  Æschines,  when  the  crier  asked:  ‘Who  wishes  to 
speak?'  not  ‘ Who  ivishes  to  complain  of  the  past  or  to 
guarantee  the  future ?'  While  you,  on  those  occasions  sat 
mute  in  the  assembly,  I  came  forward  and  spoke.  How¬ 
ever,  as  you  omitted  then,  tell  us  now:  say  what  scheme  I 
ought  to  have  devised;  what  favorable  opportunity  was  lost 
to  the  state  by  my  neglect?  what  alliance  was  there,  what 
better  plan,  to  which  I  should  have  directed  the  people? 

“  But  no.  The  past  is  with  all  the  world  given  up.  No 
one  even  proposes  to  deliberate  about  it.  The  future  it  is,  or 
the  present,  that  demands  the  action  of  a  counsellor.  At  the 
time,  as  it  appears,  there  were  dangers  impending,  and  dan¬ 
gers  at  hand.  Mark  the  line  of  my  policy  at  that  crisis. 
Don’t  rail  at  the  event.  The  end  of  all  things  is  what  the 
Deity  pleases.  His  line  of  policy  it  is  that  shows  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  statesman.  Do  not  then  impute  it  as  a  crime  to 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  OEATOE.  241 

me  that  Philip  chanced  to  conquer  in  battle.  That  issue 
depended  not  on  me,  but  on  the  Gods.  Prove  that  I  adopted 
not  all  measures  that  according  to  human  calculation  were 
possible;  that  I  did  not  honestly  and  diligently,  and  with 
exertions  beyond  my  strength,  carry  them  out;  or  that  my 
enterprises  were  not  honorable  and  worthy  of  the  state,  and 
necessary.  Show  me  this,  and  accuse  me  as  soon  as  }7ou  like. 
But  if  the  hurricane  that  visited  us  hath  been  too  powerful, 
not  for  us  only,  but  for  all  Greeks  besides,  what  is  the  fair 
course?  As  if  a  merchant,  after  taking  every  precaution, 
and  furnishing  his  vessel  with  everything  that  he  thought 
would  insure  her  safety,  because  afterward  he  met  with  a 
storm,  and  his  tackle  was  strained  or  broken  to  pieces,  should 
be  charged  with  the  shipwreck!  ‘Well,  but  I  was  not  the 
pilot,’  he  might  say;  just  as  I  was  not  the  general.  Fortune 
was  not  at  my  control;  all  was  under  hers.’ 

“  Consider  and  reflect  upon  this.  If,  with  the  Thebans  on 
our  side,  we  were  destined  to  fail  in  the  contest,  what  was  to 
be  expected  if  we  had  never  had  them  for  allies,  but  they  had 
joined  Philip,  as  he  used  every  effort  of  persuasion  to  make 
them  do?  And  if,  when  the  battle  was  fought  three  days’ 
march  from  Attica,  such  peril  and  alarm  surrounded  the  city, 
what  must  we  have  expected  if  the  same  disaster  had  happened 
in  some  part  of  our  territory?  As  it  was  (do  you  see?),  we 
could  stand,  —  meet  breath.  Mightily  did  one,  two,  three 
da}rs  help  to  our  preservation.  In  the  other  case,  —  but  it  is 
wrong  to  mention  things  of  which  we  have  been  spared  the 
trial  by  the  favor  of  some  deity,  and  by  our  protecting  our¬ 
selves  with  the  very  alliance  which  you  assail. 

“  All  this,  at  such  length,  have  I  addressed  to  you,  men  of 
the  jury,  and  to  the  outer  circle  of  hearers;  for,  as  to  this 
contemptible  fellow,  a  short  and  plain  argument  would  suffice. 
If  the  future  was  revealed  to  you,  Æschines,  alone,  when  the 
state  was  deliberating  on  these  proceedings,  you  ought  to 
have  forewarned  us  at  the  time.  If  you  did  not  foresee  it 
11 


242 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


you  are  responsible  for  the  same  ignorance  as  the  rest.  Why 
do  you  accuse  me  in  this  behalf,  rather  than  I  you?  A  better 
citizen  have  I  been  than  you  in  respect  of  the  matters  of 
which  I  am  speaking  (others  I  discuss  not  at  present),  inas¬ 
much  as  1  gave  myself  up  to  what  seemed  for  the  general 
good,  not  shrinking  from  any  personal  danger,  nor  taking 
thought  of  any;  while  you  neither  suggested  better  measures 
(or  mine  would  not  have  been  adopted)  nor  lent  any  aid  in 
the  prosecuting  of  mine.  Exactly  what  the  basest  person  and 
worst  enemy  of  the  state  would  do,  are  you  found  to  have 
done,  after  the  event;  and  at  the  same  time  Aristratus  in 
Naxos,  and  Aristolaus  in  Thasos,  the  deadly  foes  of  our  state, 
are  bringing  to  trial  the  friends  of  Athens,  and  Æschines,  at 
Athens,  is  accusing  Demosthenes.  Surely  the  man  who 
waited  to  found  his  reputation  upon  the  misfortunes  of  the 
Greeks  deserves  rather  to  perish  than  to  accuse  another;  nor 
is  it  possible  that  one  who  has  profited  by  the  same  conjunc¬ 
tures  as  the  enemies  of  the  commonwealth  can  be  a  well- 
wisher  of  his  country.  You  show  yourself  by  your  life  and 
conduct,  by  your  political  action,  and  even  your  political 
inaction.  Is  anything  going  on  that  appears  good  for  the 
people?  Æschines  is  mute.  Has,  anything  untoward  hap¬ 
pened  or  amiss?  Forth  comes  Æschines,  just  as  fractures 
and  sprains  are  put  in  motion  when  the  body  is  attacked 
with  disease. 

“  But  since  he  insists  so  strongly  on  the  event,  I  will  even 
assert  something  of  a  paradox,  and  I  beg  and  pray  of  you  not 
to  marvel  at  its  boldness,  but  kindly  to  consider  what  I  say. 
If,  then,  the  results  had  been  foreknown  to  all, —  if  all  had 
foreseen  them,  and  you,  Æschines,  had  foretold  them  and 
protested  with  clamor  and  outer}', —  you  that  never  opened 
your  mouth, —  not  even  then  should  the  commonwealth  have 
abandoned  her  design,  if  she  had  any  regard  for  glory  or 
ancestry  or  futurity.  As  it  is,  she  appears  to  have  failed  in 
her  enterprise, —  a  thing  to  which  all  mankind  are  liable  if  the 
Deity  so  wills  it;  but  then,  claiming  precedence  over  others, 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


243 


and  afterward  abandoning  her  pretensions,  she  would  liavc 
incurred  the  charge  of  betraying  all  to  Philip.  Why?  Had 
we  resigned  without  a  struggle  that  which  our  ancestors  en- 
countered  every  danger  to  win,  who  would  not  have  spit 
upon  }rou?  Let  me  not  say  the  commonwealth  or  myself. 
With  what  eyes,  I  pray,  could  we  have  beheld  strangers 
visiting  the  city,  if  the  result  had  been  what  it  is  and  Philip 
had  been  chosen  leader  and  lord  of  all?  But  other  people 
without  us  had  made  the  struggle  to  prevent  it,  especially 
when  in  former  times  our  country  had  never  preferred  an 
ignominious  security  to  the  battle  for  honor.  For  what 
Grecian  or  what  barbarian  is  ignorant  that  by  the  Thebans, 
or  by  the  Lacedaemonians,  who  were  in  might  before  them, 
or  by  the  Persian  Icing,  permission  would  thankfully  and 
gladly  have  been  given  to  our  commonwealth  to  take  what 
she  pleased  and  hold  her  own,  provided  she  would  accept 
foreign  law  and  let  another  power  command  in  Greece  ? 
But,  as  it  seems,  to  the  Athenians  of  that  day  such  conduct 
would  not  have  been  national  or  natural  or  endurable. 
None  could  at  airy  period  of  time  persuade  the  common¬ 
wealth  to  attach  herself  in  secure  subjection  to  the  powerful 
and  unjust.  Through  every  age  has  she  persevered  in  a 
perilous  struggle  for  precedence  and  honor  and  glory,  and 
this  }'ou  esteem  so  noble  and  congenial  to  your  principles 
that  among  vour  ancestors  vou  honor  most  those  who  acted 
in  such  a  spirit,  and  with  reason;  for  who  would  not  ad¬ 
mire  the  virtue  of  those  men  who  resolutely  embarked  in 
their  galleys  and  quitted  country  and  home  rather  than 
receive  foreign  law,  choosing  Themistocles,  who  gave  such 
counsel,  for  their  general,  and  stoning  Cyrsilus  to  death, 
who  advised  submission  to  the  terms  imposed;  not  him  only, 
but  your  wives  also  stoning  his  wife?  Yes,  the  Athenians 
of  that  day  looked  not  for  an  orator  or  a  general  who  might 
help  them  to  a  pleasant  servitude.  They  scorned  to  live  if 
it  could  not  be  with  freedom;  for  each  of  them  considered 
that  he  was  not  born  to  his  father  or  mother  only,  but  also 


244 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


to  bis  country.  What  is  the  difference?  He  that  thinks 
himself  born  for  his  parents  only  waits  for  his  appointed  or 
natural  end.  He  that  thinks  himself  born  for  his  country 
also,  will  sooner  perish  than  behold  her  in  slavery,  and  will 
regard  the  insults  and  indignities,  which  must  be  borne  in  a 
commonwealth  enslaved,  as  more  terrible  than  death. 

“  Had  I  attempted  to  say  that  I  instructed  you  in  senti¬ 
ments  worthy  of  your  ancestors,  there  is  not  a  man  who 
would  not  justly  rebuke  me.  What  I  declare  is,  that  such 
principles  are  your  own.  I  show  that  before  my  time  such 
was  the  spirit  of  the  commonwealth,  though  certainly  in  the 
execution  of  the  particular  measures  I  claim  a  share  also  for 
myself.  The  prosecutor,  arraigning  the  whole  proceedings 
and  imbittering  you  against  me  as  the  cause  of  our  alarms 
and  dangers,  in  his  eagerness  to  deprive  me  of  honor  for  the 
moment,  robs  you  of  the  eulogies  that  should  endure  forever. 
For  should  you,  under  a  disbelief  in  the  wisdom  of  my  policy, 
convict  the  defendant,  you  will  appear  to  have  done  wrong 
not  to  have  suffered  what  befell  you  by  the  cruelty  of  fortune. 
But  never,  never  can  you  have  done  wrong,  0  Athenians,  in 
undertaking  the  battle  for  freedom  and  safety  of  all!  I 
swear  it  by  your  forefathers,  those  that  met  the  perot  at 
Marathon,  those  that  took  the  field  at  Platæa,  those  in  the 
sea-fight  at  Salamis,  and  those  at  Artemisium,  and  many 
other  brave  men  who  repose  in  the  public  monuments,  all 
of  whom  alike,  as  being  worthy  of  the  same  honor,  the  coun¬ 
try  buried,  Æschines, —  not  only  the  successful  or  victorious! 
Justly.  For  the  duty  of  brave  men  has  been  done  by  all; 
their  fortune  has  been  such  as  the  Deity  assigned  to  each. 

“Accursed  scribbler!  You,  to  deprive  me  of  the  approba¬ 
tion  and  affection  of  my  countrymen,  speak  of  trophies  and 
battles  and  ancient  deeds,  with  none  of  which  had  this  present 
trial  the  least  concern;  but  I, —  0  you  third-rate  actor! — I, 
that  rose  to  counsel  the  state  how  to  maintain  her  preemi¬ 
nence,  in  what  spirit  was  I  to  mount  the  hustings?  In  the 
spirit  of  one  having  unworthy  counsel  to  offer?  I  should 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


245 


have  deserved  to  perish!  You  yourselves,  men  of  Athens, 
may  not  try  private  and  public  causes  on  the  s’allie  princi¬ 
ples.  The  compacts  of  every-day  life  you  are  to  judge  of 
by  particular  laws  and  circumstances;  the  measures  of  states¬ 
men  by  reference  to  the  dignity  of  your  ancestors;  and  if 
you  think  it  your  duty  to  act  worthily  of  them,  you  should 
every  one  of  }’ou  consider,  when  you  come  into  court  to 
decide  public  questions,  that,  together  with  your  staff  and 
ticket,  the  spirit  of  the  commonwealth  is  delivered  to  you. 
But  in  touching  upon  the  deeds  of  your  ancestors  there  were 
some  decrees  and  transactions  which  I  omitted.  I  will  re¬ 
turn  from  my  digression.1’* 

Such  is  the  development  which  Demosthenes  calls  the 
'paradox  of  his  oration.  Two  reasons  have  persuaded 
us  not  to  detach  it  from  the  frame  which  the  author 
has  given  it.  This  immortal  oath,  more  honorable  to 
Demosthenes,  according  to  Cardinal  Duperron,  than  if 
the  orator  had  raised  from  the  dead  the  warriors  whose 
memory  he  evokes,  is  not  an  eloquent  climax  placed  at 
the  close  of  the  oration,  like  Æschines’  prosopopoeia. 
It  is  a  digression,  a  kind  of  unpremeditated  parenthe¬ 
sis,  spontaneously  bursting  from  the  orator’s  soul. 
Cicero  or  Mirabeau  would  undoubtedly  have  reserved 
it  for  the  peroration;  Demosthenes,  the  accomplished 
artist,  did  not.  This  trait  gives  an  idea  of  the  wise 
economy  of  his  great  orations.  Furthermore,  to  isolate 
his  apostrophe  to  the  heroes  of  Marathon,  is  to  weaken  it. 
It  must  be  produced  as  the  orator  himself  produced  it; 
we  must  mark  the  progression  of  the  sublime  crescendo 
whose  thunder  (Où  / m  r<>b<;  èv  MapaOàivt)  is  the  culmi¬ 
nating  point.  After  this  peal  of  thunder  the  orator 
gradually  becomes  calm.  Demosthenes  seems  to  obey 
the  inspiration  that  governs  him,  as  the  waves  of  the 


*  Pro  Corona ,  §  154  et  seq. 


246 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


ocean  obey  the  force  which  raises  and  calms  them.  In 
reality  he  remains  in  full  possession  of  his  genius; 
while  appearing  to  follow  the  emotions  of  his  soul  with 
docility,  he  directs  them.  Jupiter  illuminates  the  heav¬ 
ens  and  thunders  at  his  will.  Demosthenes  acts  in  like 
manner,  but  not  in  the  manner  of  Pericles;  for  in  him 
a  vehemence  of  passions  bursts  forth, —  a  vehemence  of 
actions  and  words  of  which  Pericles  was  ignorant.  He 
has  the  sudden  spring  of  a  lion  that  leaps  upon  the 
weapon  which  has  pierced  him;  he  invokes  all  the 
gods  and  goddesses  of  Attica,  and  Pythian  Apollo 
against  the  impure  bigot  who  dares  to  treat  him  as 
sacrilegious.  lie  interrupts  a  citation  in  order  to 
launch  against  him  an  imprecation;  he  crushes  him 
with  scorn:  “May  the  gods,  may  the  Athenians  wdio 
are  here  present,  destroy  you,  wretch,  depraved  citizen, 
vicious  actor  !  ” 

When  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  was  reading  a 
page  of  Isocrates,  he  felt  an  impression  like  that  of 
limpid  oil  agreeably  flowing  into  his  ears.  He  thought 
he  heard  the  calm  harmony  of  a  spondaic  song  in  Dorian 
style.  When  he  took  up  an  oration  of  Demosthenes, 
enthusiasm  seized  him.  He  was  agitated  in  every 
sense  by  the  different  passions  governing  the  human 
heart;  he  experienced  the  transports  of  the  priests  of 
Cybele.  In  Plutarch’s  time  there  wTas  to  be  seen  at  the 
Prytaneum,  “on  the  right,  on  entering,”  a  portrait  of 
Demosthenes  with  a  sword  at  bis  side.  This  sword 
wras  glittering  in  the  hands  of  Demosthenes  on  the 
rostrum;  it  was  the  attribute  of  the  king  of  eloquence, 
as  in  the  first  circle  of  Dante’s  Inferno ,  it  consecrates 
the  command  of  Homer,  “the  sovereign  poet.” 

V.  Demosthenes  marked  at  different  times  the  effi¬ 
cacy  of  oratorical  precaution  and  manners:  “  Eloquence 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


247 


falls  powerless  on  ill-disposed  hearers,”  and  so  he 
always  studied  his  hearers  carefully.  The  interest  of 
Athens  imposed  a  duty  on  him  of  not  saying  truths 
too  readily,  nor  striking  too  blindly.  He  attacks  the 
theoricon ,  but  Qot  openly.  He  would  destroy  this 
abuse  without  inconsiderately  falling  upon  the  sword 
of  the  law  which  protects  it.  Courage  among  the 
Greeks  never  excluded  prudence.  Like  the  preachers 
of  Louis  XI V,  he  sometimes  congratulates  the  Athe¬ 
nians  on  qualities  of  which  they  are  totally  destitute. 
Athens  was  the  fatherland  of  jealousy,  ingratitude  and 
ostracism.  Demosthenes  pretends  to  forget  it,  and 
makes  his  counsels  agreeable  by  eulogies  which  he  is 
desirous  to  see  merited. 

“  If  you  confirm  the  law  of  Leptines,  the  suppression  of 
immunities  will  be  attributed  to  envy.  Now,  of  all  dishon¬ 
orable  vices,  it  is  most  essential  that  you  should  shun  this, 
Athenians.  Why?  because  envy  is  an  unmistakable  mark  of 
a  bad  nature,  and  the  envious  can  allege  no  excuse  to  obtain 
pardon.  Besides,  there  is  no  disgrace  from  which  our  state 
should  be  freer  than  from  envy,  —  our  state  to  which  all  kinds 
of  baseness  are  repugnant.  How  many  proofs  bear  witness  to 
it!  See,  you  alone,  among  all  nations,  honor  the  brave  with 
public  'funerals  and  funeral  eulogies,  in  which  you  celebrate 
their  exploits.  This  custom  characterizes  a  nation  passion¬ 
ately  devoted  to  virtue,  and  incapable  of  envy  toward  those 
who  owe  to  it  their  reward.  You  accord,  also,  at  all  times, 
the  highest  honors  to  the  victors  in  the  gymnastic  contests  at 
which  crowns  are  awarded.  These  honors  cannot  be  extended 
beyond  a  small  number  of  fortunate  ones;  and  yet  you  are 
not  jealous  of  them;  you  hold  nothing  from  them.  Let  us 
add  that  Athens  never  seems  outdone  in  generosity,  so  far 
does  the  grandeur  of  her  gifts  excel  the  services  received. 
All  these  traits,  Athenians,  are  proofs  of  justice,  virtue  and 
magnanimity.  Do  not,  then,  to-day,  take  away  from  our 


248 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GKEECE. 


country  what  was  her  glory  in  all  ages;  and,  for  the  sake  of 
aiding  Leptines,  to  personally  outrage  some  citizens  who  dis¬ 
please  him,  do  not  deprive  the  city  and  yourselves  of  the  good 
reputation  which  has  always  followed  you.  In  this  judicial 
combat,  the  only  question  at  issue  is  to  know  whether  the 
national  dignity  is  to  be  preserved  pure,  and  worthy  of  its 
past,  or  shall  it  be  degraded  and  annihilated.” 

Demosthenes  praises  Athens  for  her  aversion  to 
envy.  In  the  meantime,  the  irritation  of  this  passion 
was  one  of  the  greatest  means  employed  by  her  ora¬ 
tors.  It  inspired  them  with  invective  and  calumny 
against  the  adversary,  and  imposed  on  them  strict 
obligation  and  modesty. 

Modesty  is  a  decency  which  the  ancients,  in  general, 
little  knew.  UI  am  pious  Æneas,  whose  renown  and 
glory  is  known  beyond  the  stars.”  To  whosoever 
asks  his  name  and  race,  the  son  of  Tenus,  unknown  in 
Libya,  is  obliged  to  repeat  the  echoes  of  this  fame 
beyond  the  stars.  By  his  ingenious  vanity,  Cicero 
was  worthy  of  living  in  the  heroic  age.  Justly  proud 
of  a  consulship  from  which  his  poetic  enthusiasm  even 
dated  the  birth  of  Borne,  the  vanquisher  of  Catiline 
would,  according  to  his  own  assertion,  sing  his  praises 
in  prose  and  verse.  (Ad  Atticum,  i,  19.)  Isocrates, 
a  timid  rhetorician,  praised  himself  with  an  intrepid 
assurance.  In  his  Panegyric  he  boasted  of  having 
eclipsed  his  predecessors,  vanquished  and  discouraged 
all  future  rivals.  The  author  of  the  Antidosis  could, 
with  impunity,  confide  to  the  readers  all  his  pride. 
Willing  or  unwilling,  on  the  rostrum  he  ought  to  have 
imitated  Demosthenes’  discretion. 

The  oration  On  the  Crown  is  an  apology;  the  orator 
felt  its  dangers:  “I  will  often  be  obliged  to  speak  of 
myself;  I  will  endeavor,  then,  to  do  so  with  all  becom- 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


249 


ing  modesty.  Wliat  I  am  driven  to  by  the  necessity 
of  the  case  will  be  fairly  chargeable  to  my  opponent 
who  has  instituted  such  a  prosecution.”  In  the  ex¬ 
amination  of  his  government,  so  honorable  to  him, 
he  conceals  himself  as  much  as  possible.  “After¬ 
ward  I  dispatched  all  the  armaments  by  which  Cher- 
sonesus  was  preserved,  and  Byzantium,  and  all  our 
allies;  whence  to  you  there  accrued  the  noblest  re¬ 
sults, —  praises,  eulogies,  honors,  crowns,  thanks  from 
those  you  succored.”  Demosthenes  desired  to  be 
crowned  at  the  theater  in  the  interests  of  Athens:  “  Is 
not  the  proclamation  at  the  theater  made  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  confer  the  crown  ?  For  the 
hearers  are  all  encouraged  to  render  service  to  the 
state,  and  praise  the  parties  who  show  their  gratitude 
more  than  the  party  crowned.”  In  proportion  as  the 
orator  advances  in  the  justification  of  his  ministry, 
and  wins  the  sympathy  of  his  audience,  he  dares  to 
become  less  reserved;  but  still  what  circumspection? 
“What  then!  will  they  say,  have  you  such  a  superi¬ 
ority  of  force  and  courage  that  you  alone  suffice  to 
do  all?  I  do  not  say  this;  but,  in  my  eyes,  so  great 
was  the  danger  of  the  republic,  that  it  seemed  to  be 
my  duty  to  disregard  all  consideration  of  personal 
safety,  and,  as  a  citizen,  to  provide  for  all  without 
neglecting  any.  *  *  *  Therefore  I  placed  myself  at 
every  post.”  At  the  moment  when  the  judges  are 
about  to  pronounce  sentence,  the  orator  wishes  them 
to  forget  the  emotions  of  his  fierceness,  legitimate,  if 
you  please,  but  which  perhaps  had  escaped  him,  and 
he  only  desires  to  profit  by  his  reputation  of  a  “good 
citizen.” 

Harrow  minds  incline  to  envy:  all  things  appear 
great  to  them.  The  Athenians  were  high-minded: 


250 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


jealousy  had  no  access  to  them  through  this  channel; 
it  was  born  among  them  from  a  lively  feeling  of 
equality.  Allied  to  emulation,  envy  could  be  easily 
produced  in  a  city  in  which  all  had  the  same  rights, 
'the  same  ambitions,  and  where  no  one  was  so  high 
or  so  low  as  not  to  he  susceptible  of  awakening  jealous 
sentiments.  The  citizen  accused  of  envy  by  the 
splendor  of  a  singular  glory  had  but  one  means  to 
obtain  pardon  from  his  compatriots:  this  was  to  as¬ 
sociate  with  them.  The  orator  of  the  oration  On  the 
Crown  used  this  artifice  and  was  acquitted.* 

The  orator’s  task  at  Athens  was  a  difficult  one:  all 
had  their  liberty  of  speech  except  the  sincere  coun¬ 
sellor.  “  Franchise  is  a  common  right  in  our  city, 
to  that  degree  that  you  extend  it  to  foreigners  and 
slaves.  We  see  that  the  slave  here  has  more  liberty 
of  speech  than  the  citizen  in  some  other  common¬ 
wealths;  but  you  have  completely  banished  this  liberty 
from  the  tribune.”  Eupliræus  revealed  the  Mace¬ 
donian’s  manœuvers  to  the  Oritians.  Philip’s  hire¬ 
lings  threw  Eupliræus  into  prison,  as  a  disturber  of 
the  public  peace.  The  people,  instead  of  whipping 
them  to  death  ( â-oTufj.-œA<rai ),  insulted  their  victim  and 
“dragged  him  in  the  dust.”  The  year  had  scarcely 
passed  when  Philip  appeared  at  the  foot  of  their 
ramparts,  and  proscription  and  murder  decimated  the 
enslaved  city.  Eupliræus’  predictions  were  justified. 
The  fate  of  Eupliræus  did  not  discourage  Demos- 

*  Certain  orators  accused  Pericles  of  ruining  tlic  commonwealth 
with  his  monuments.  “  Do  you  find,”  said  he  to  the  assembled 
people,  “that  I  have  spent  too  much? — Yes,  and  much  too  much. 
Very  well;  these  expenses  shall  he  charged  to  me;  hut,  in  return, 
my  name  alone  shall  figure  in  the  inscriptions  of  the  edifices.” 
At  these  words  all  the  people  cried  out  that  he  could  take  from  the 
treasure  enough  to  cover  the  expenses  without  sparing  anything. 


DE3I0STIIENES —  THE  ORATOR. 


251 


tlienes;  lie  left  to  others  those  harangues  which  en¬ 
rich  their  authors  and  destroy  the  state.  Demagogues 
humble  themselves  before  the  people,  the  dispensa- 
tors  of  favors,  in  order  to  master  and  delight  them. 
“What  do  you  desire?  what  decree  shall  we  pro¬ 
pose  ?  what  can  we  do  to  please  you  ?  ”  *  Demos¬ 
thenes,  like  a  true  friend,  reprimands  instead  of 
flattering  them.  The  people  of  Athens,  “formerly 
the  guardian  of  our  common  liberty,”  have  fallen 
very  low.  At  the  mercy  of  their  own  weakness,  they 
judge  of  their  power  by  their  corpulence,  of  the 
strength  of  the  state  by  the  abundance  of  its  mar¬ 
kets.  These  places  abound  in  provisions  of  all  kinds; 
everything  that  flatters  the  senses  has  here  a  rendez¬ 
vous  from  all  points  of  Greece;  but  for  essential  pro¬ 
visions,  the  finances  of  the  state,  devotion  of  the 
allies,  disinterestedness  in  public  burdens,  courage  in 
war;  of  all  these  “there  is  a  want  worthy  of  laughter.” 

“Well,  sir,  this  looks  bad,  but  tilings  at  home  are  better. 
What  proof  can  be  adduced?  —  the  parapets  that  are  white¬ 
washed? —  the  roads  that  are  repaired?  —  fountains  and  fool¬ 
eries?  Look  at  the  men  of  whose  statesmanship  these  are 
the  fruits.  They  have  risen  from  beggary  to  opulence,  or 
from  obscurity  to  honor.  Some  have  made  their  private 
houses  more  splendid  than  the  public  buildings,  and  in  pro¬ 
portion  as  the  state  has  declined  their  fortunes  have  been 
exalted.  What  has  produced  these  results?  How  is  it  that 
all  went  prosperously  then,  and  now  goes  wrong?  Because 
anciently  the  people,  having  the  courage  to  be  soldiers,  con¬ 
trolled  the  statesmen  and  disposed  of  all  emoluments.  Any 
of  the  rest  was  happy  to  receive  from  the  people  his  share  of 
honor,  office  or  advantage.  Now,  on  the  contrary,  the  states¬ 
men  dispose  of  emoluments.  Through  them  everything  is 


*  Cf.  Aristotle,  Politics ,  vi,  5;  viii,  9. 


252 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


done.  You,  the  people,  enervated,  stripped  of  treasure  and 
allies,  are  become  as  underlings  *  and  hangers-on,  happy  if 
these  persons  dole  you  out  show-money  or  send  you  paltry 
beeves;  and,  the  unmanliest  part  of  all,  you  are  grateful  for 
receiving  your  own.  They,  cooping  you  in  the  city,  lead  you 
to  your  pleasures  and  make  you  tame  and  submissive  to  their 
hands.  It  is  impossible,  I  say,  to  have  a  high  and  noble 
spirit  while  you  are  engaged  in  petty  and  mean  employments. 
Whatever  be  the  pursuits  of  men,  their  characters  must  be 
similar.” 

The  same  thoughts  were  already  expressed  by  the 
poet  of  the  Knights  with  a  still  bolder  figure.  Com¬ 
edy  always  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  whipping  while 
laughing.  The  general  Demosthenes  announces  to  the 
pudding  merchant  Agoracritus  the  oracle  which  calls 
him  to  supplant  Cleon  in  the  favor  of  the  people. 

“ Demosthenes:  To-day  you  have  nothing,  to-morrow  you 
will  have  all,  chief  of  happy  Athens, —  felicity,  wealth  and 
power.  Agoracritus  :  Why  don't  you  let  me  wash  my  tripe 
and  sell  my  pudding,  instead  of  making  a  fool  of  me?  Bern.: 
What  a  moon-calf  !  Your  tripe!  Don’t  you  see  these  benches 
loaded  with  people?  Ag.:  Yes.  Bern.:  You  will  become  their 
master, —  master  of  them  all,  master  of  the  market,  of  the 
harbors,  of  the  Pnyx.  You  will  be  able  to  trample  on  the 
senate,  to  dismiss  the  generals,  to  load  them  with  chains,  to 
put  them  in  prison,  to  have  a  jollification  in  the  Prytaneum. 
Ag. :  I?  Bern.:  You.  But  you  don’t  see  all  yet.  Mount 
your  basket  and  look  at  all  the  islands  that  surround  Athens. 
Ag.:  I  see  them.  Well?  Bern.:  These  warehouses,  these 
merchantmen?  Ag.:  Yes,  no  doubt.  Bern.:  Is  any  mortal 
happier  than  }rou?  Turn  your  right  eye  to  Caria,  and  your 
left  toward  Chalcedonia.  Ag.:  Is  it  considered  fortunate  to 

*  This  is  the  passage,  no  doubt,  but  corrected,  in  which  Æscliines 
mentions  the  intolerable  “  monsters  ”  of  expression. 


DEMOSTHENES 


THE  ORATOR. 


253 


squint?  Bern.:  No:  but  you  will  become  a  dealer  in  all 
that.” 

Aristophanes  returns  to  the  charge  in  the  Wasps 
against  the  spongers  of  the  good  people  who  become 
their  victims. 

“  These  fellows  extort  from  the  allies  hundreds  of  talents 
by  menace  and  intimidation;  and  you, —  you  are  contented 
if  you  receive  a  trifle  of  your  own  power.  *  *  *  In  return 
for  so  many  toils  on  land  and  sea,  you  are  not  even  given  as 
much  as  a  clove  of  garlic  to  eat  with  your  small  fish,  and  yet 
you  are  their  master.” 

The  comparison  of  Demosthenes  and  Aristophanes 
is  commendable  to  the  orator.  Demosthenes  opens 
the  people’s  eyes  upon  the  fraudulent  administration 
and  corrupt  proceedings  of  their  rulers.  His  aim  is 
to  bereave  them  of  all  credit,  to  reestablish  order  in 
the  administration,  and  civic  virtues  in  their  hearts. 
Aristophanes  arouses  the  mob  against  the  usurpers 
of  their  power,  without  suggesting  any  improvement. 
He  wishes  to  disgorge  the  peculators  and  intriguers 
who  feed  upon  the  interests  and  finances  of  the  state, 
and  for  the  sole  purpose  of  gorging  the  people  in  their 
turn.  Did  he  ask  to  see  the  public  wealth  employed 
for  the  prosperity  of  Athens?  Ho,  but  for  universal 
enjoyment. 

“  If  they  wished  to  assure  the  well-being  of  the  people, 
nothing  would  be  easier  for  them.  We  have  now  a  thou¬ 
sand  tributary  cities.  Let  them  order  each  one  of  these  to 
support  twenty  Athenians,  and  our  twenty  thousand  citizens 
will  eat  nothing  but  hares,  will  drink  nothing  but  pure  milk, 
and  always  crowned  with  garlands,  in  the  midst  of  perfumes 
as  sweet  as  the  exemption  from  military  service.  They  will 
enjoy  the  delights  to  which  the  great  name  of  their  country 
and  the  trophies  of  Marathon  entitle  them.”  (Wasps.) 


254 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


But  Demosthenes  does  not  thus  understand  the  pub¬ 
lic  censor’s  rôle.  Free  from  party  passion,  he  does 
not  scourge  any  category  of  citizens  for  the  benefit  of 
another.  lie  brings  the  whole  city  to  trial.  He  does 
not  arouse  ignoble  lusts,  but  generous  sentiments. 
The  audacities  of  Aristophanes  were  not  dangerous, 
lie  pierced  the  demagogues  with  his  arrows,  shielding 

himself  behind  the  envious  avidity  of  the  multitude. 

«/ 

Later  his  language  strengthened  the  credit  of  Philip’s 
friends.  Preserve  peace  at  all  hazards  !  Demos¬ 
thenes  braved  the  resentment  of  the  Athenians;  he 
exposed  himself  to  their  blows  when  he  wounded  them 
in  order  to  heal  them. 

The  Athenian  people  were  a  good  prince.  We  know 
the  cliivalric  manner  in  which  Cleon  one  day  dis¬ 
charged  the  people:  “To-morrow  our  affairs,  citizens; 
a  sacrifice  awaits  me  at  home;  I  have  guests  to  enter¬ 
tain.”  Stratocles  announces  a  victory  and  invites  the 
Athenians  to  celebrate  it  with  a  thanksgiving.  After 
the  feast,  the  people  learn  that  the  victory  has  been  a 
defeat;  they  become  angry:  “Well,  of  what  do  you 
complain  ?  Have  I  not  given  you  enjoyment  for  three 
days  ?”  The  people  are  more  patient  than  kings.  This 
democracy,  ridiculed  by  Aristophanes,  had,  however, 
something  good:  it  suffered  reprimands  under  the  rudest 
form.  “  Strike,  but  hear,”  said  Themistocles  to  Eury- 
biades;  the  Athenians  hear  without  striking.  A  people 
who  are  affable  sovereigns  do  not  invoke  the  principle 
of  authority  with  which  kings  crown  themselves.  They 
allow  the  authority  of  courageous  reason  to  prevail; 
the  severest  counsels  do  not  injure  their  majesty.  La 
Fontaine  advises  him  who  frequents  the  cœur  du  lion 
to  be 

“  Ni  fade  adulateur  ni  parleur  trop  sincère," 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


255 


and  to  answer  sometimes  equivocally.  "With  the  popu¬ 
lar  lion  Demosthenes,  in  an  emergency,  disdained  shifts; 
he  had  nothing  of  the  courtier.  We  dare  not  speak 
the  truth  to  our  kings, — sometimes  they  do  not  deserve 
it.  Good  citizens  speak  it  to  their  people,  but  do  they 
always  profit  by  it  ? 

VI.  Æschines  exalted  the  ancestors,  in  order  that  he 

might  the  better  vilify  Demosthenes.  Demosthenes 

extolled  the  Athens  of  Themistocles  and  Miltiades  in 

order  to  elevate  the  Athens  of  his  own  century  to  their 

«/ 

height.  This  parallel  is,  says  he,  full  of  instruction. 
These  great  national  remembrances,  if  they  do  not  re¬ 
main  sterile,  would  suffice  to  awaken  the  fortune  of  the 
city.  Demosthenes  always  has  them  present  in  his 
mind;  for  “every  harangue  addressed  to  an  illustrious 
commonwealth  ought  to  appear  higher  than  the  orator, 
and  to  be  estimated,  not  according  to  the  importance  of 
a  single  citizen,  but  according  to  the  majesty  of  Ath¬ 
ens.”  Faithful  to  his  maxim,  Demosthenes  always 
supported  the  cause  of  his  country’s  honor.  The  ad¬ 
versary  of  political  “false  coiners,”  whose  counsel 
tended  to  alter  the  national  character,  he  labored  to 
preserve  its  purity,  from  the  oration  Against  Leptines 
(355)  even  to  the  day  of  Cliæronea,  when  “the  sun  of 
Greece  was  extinguished.”  ITe  did  not  speak  to  Scyth¬ 
ians,  to  Siphnians,  or  to  people  of  that  kind,  but  to  a 
nation  whose  glory  awakened  them  to  high  pretensions 
and  manly  designs.  What  !  yield  to  Philip,  when  the 
dignity  of  their  ancestors  rises  before  the  eyes  of  the 
Athenians,  inciting  them  to  rival  their  virtues!  Rather 
die  than  give  such  advice. 

“  Prepare  yourselves,  and  make  every  effort  first,  then  sum¬ 
mon,  gather,  instruct  the  rest  of  the  Greeks.  That  is  the 


256 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


duty  of  a  state  possessing  a  dignity  such  as  yours.  If  you 
imagine  that  Chalcidians  or  Me^arians  will  save  Greece,  while 
you  run  away  from  the  contest,  you  imagine  wrong.  Well 
for  any  of  those  people  if  they  are  safe  themselves.  This 
work  belongs  to  you  ;  this  privilege  your  ancestors  bequeathed 
to  you,  the  prize  of  many  perilous  exertions.”  * 

The  whole  world,  said  Pericles*  is  the  tomb  of  our 
braves.  Their  memory,  engraved  on  columns,  is  in¬ 
trusted  to  a  more  durable  monument, —  the  admiration 
of  future  generations.  u  Be  emulators  of  these  heroes; 
consider  that  happiness  is  in  liberty,  liberty  in  courage, 
and  do  not  recoil  before  the  dangers  of  war.”  f  De¬ 
mosthenes,  the  political  heir  of  Pericles,  used  the  same 
language  before  the  Athenians,  but  with  greater  au¬ 
thority.  It  was  no  longer  a  question  of  dispute  as  to 
who  should  have  the  hegemony  in  rival  Greek  cities, 
but  how  to  save  the  liberty  of  the  Hellenes  against  a 
foreigner.  The  high  opinion  which  a  people  entertain 
of  themselves  is  one  of  the  elements  of  their  power. 
Demosthenes  inspired  these  proud  sentiments  in  the 
hearts  of  his  contemporaries.  He  wished  to  maintain 
them  at  their  proper  level  by  elevating  them  above 
other  men.  Formerly  they  were  worthy  to  command; 
let  them  prove  themselves  to-day  unworthy  of  being 
enslaved. 

The  magnanimous  man  has  a  passion  for  honor;  “  he 
seeks  what  is  beautiful  and  without  fruit,  rather  than 
what  is  useful  and  fruitful.”  This  grandeur  of  soul 
was  peculiar  to  Athens.  Writli  all  her  orators,  and  some 
of  her  poets,  Demosthenes  rendered  conspicuous  the 
hereditary  generosity  which,  since  (Edipus  and  the 
Heraclidæ,  made  the  city  of  Minerva  a  refuge  for  the 
oppressed,  while  Thebes  voted  for  the  destruction  of 

*  Third  Philippic ,  §  73.  f  Funeral  Oration,  Thucydides,  ii,  43. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


257 


Athens  under  the  hands  of  Lysander.  Lacedæmon 
without  pity  destroyed  the  vanquished  city  (405),  as 
she  had  formerly  sacked  Platæa  (427).  Athens,  after 
Leuctra,  prevented  the  Thebans  from  annihilating  her 
secular  enemy  Sparta.  This  magnanimous  rôle,  always 
proudly  sustained,  made  the  Median  wars  the  most 
beautiful  page  of  her  golden  book.  In  the  midst  of 
almost  universal  egotism,*  Athens  remained  faithful  to 
Hellenic  interests.  In  this  respect  she  had  those  who 
envied  her,  but  no  rivals.  A  century  and  a  half  later 
it  was  a  4 4  shameful  and  pitiful  sight”  f  to  see  Greece 
soliciting  the  bribes  of  a  Macedonian  prince  whom  she 
could  have  made  a  client,  and  the  cities  jealously  dis¬ 
puting  the  favor  of  a  monarch  who  oppressed  them.  It 
was  not  in  Demosthenes  to  save  Greece  from  this  shame, 
but  it  was  due  to  him  that  his  city  at  least  was  saved 
from  it.  Notwithstanding  the  decay  of  ancient  virtues, 
he  knew  how  to  make  this  city  worthy  of  herself,  and 
he  himself  did  not  degenerate,  nor  was  he  inferior  to 
those  ancestors  whom  he  extolled.  Plutarch  attributes 
this  singular  judgment  to  Theophrastus.  44  Demosthe¬ 
nes  is  on  a  level  with  his  city,  Demades  is  above  it.” 
Demades,  whom  Antipater  said  was  naught  but  tongue 
and  stomach, —  a  venal  tongue,  an  insatiate  stomach, 
whose  greediness  the  Macedonian  complained  he  could 
not  satisfy.  If  Plutarch  exactly  reported  Theophras¬ 
tus’  words,  such  a  judgment,  even  when  restricted  to 
the  eloquence  of  the  two  persons,  justly  surprises  us 
when  coming  from  the  lips  of  a  philosopher  who  ought 
to  understand  characters. 

Athens  counted  more  than  one  citizen  who  was 
struck  with  the  imperfections  of  her  constitution,  and 
disposed  to  praise  that  of  Sparta  to  the  detriment  of 

*  Plato,  Laws ,  iii.  f  Justin,  viii,  4. 

11* 


258 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Athens.  A  common  prejudice  :  everyone  is  wounded 
by  the  defects  of  his  own  government;  everyone  per¬ 
ceives  but  the  good  qualities  of  his  neighboring  gov¬ 
ernments.  Leptines,  hostile  to  immunities,  alleged 
that  Lacedaemon  gave  no  similar  recompense.  Here 
Demosthenes  had  an  opportunity  for  judicious  reflec¬ 
tions  on  the  imitation  of  foreign  customs.  In  fact, 
each  people  have  their  genius,  consequently  their  man¬ 
ners  and  their  laws.  Each  political  system  has  its 
advantages,  providing  that  all  regulations  in  it  concur 
and  are  inspired  by  the  same  spirit.  A  law  which  is 
good  in  one  country  becomes  bad  in  another,  if,  instead 
of  finding  laws  allied  to  and  sympathetic  with  itself,  it 
finds  that  it  is  expatriated,  as  it  were,  among  strangers. 
At  Sparta  the  recompense  for  merit  was  the  participa¬ 
tion  in  the  power  of  the  senate.  At  Athens  it  was  a 
crown,  exemption  from  public  duties,  and  the  hospi¬ 
tality  of  the  Prytancum.  “Things  are  well  arranged 
both  here  and  there.”  For,  in  an  aristocratic  state, 
the  distribution  of  authority  is  a  pledge  of  harmony 
among  the  nobles  (up'.GTot)  who  are  called  to  govern  the 
city.  Where  the  people  rule,  the  recompenses  which 
they  decree  ought  to  entertain  the  emulatioji  of  virtues, 
without  interfering  with  the  principles  of  popular  sov¬ 
ereignty. 

“  In  general,  it  seems  to  me  that  before  praising  the  laws 
and  customs  of  other  cities,  and  censuring  your  own,  you 
ought  to  prove  that  they  are  better  than  yours.  But  since, 
thanks  to  the  Gods,  public  affairs,  concord  and  everything  is 
better  at  home,  why  will  you  disdain  your  own  usages  and 
run  after  those  of  others?” 

Hot  so  much  imitators  of  their  neighbors  as  their 
neighbors  were  of  them,  the  Athenians  were  proud  of 
the  originality  of  their  constitution,  which  was  like  the 


DEMOSTHENES 


259 


THE  ORATOR. 

originality  of  their  genius.  And  they  were  wise  in 
maintaining  between  their  genius  and  their  laws  a  har¬ 
mony  which  facilitated  their  execution  and  guaranteed 
their  duration.  We  do  well  and  faithfully  only  what 
we  do  in  accordance  with  our  natural  character.* 

Demosthenes  did  not  close  his  eyes  upon  the  defects 
of  the  democratic  constitution,  but  he  did  not  wish  that 
abuse  should  be  invoked  in  order  to  proscribe  usage. 
What  human  institution  does  not  give  access  to  abuse  ? 
It  is  easy  to  deceive  the  people  ( Against  Leptines). 
Is  it  right  to  declare  them  incapable?  Let  the  geome¬ 
ter  choose  the  geometer,  the  pilot  select  the  pilot. 
Such  was  one  of  Plato’s  favorite  maxims,  insinuating 
that  philosophers  alone  were  fit  to  govern  men.  Aris¬ 
totle  did  not  approve  this  opinion.  If  individuals, 
when  isolated,  are  not  equal  to  a  learned  specialist, 
when  united  they  will  be  better,  or  at  least  equal  to  him. 
(Ho  person  ever  had  more  esprit  than  Voltaire,  if  it 
be  not  the  whole  world);  and  then,  in  many  cases,  the 
artist  is  not  the  best  appreciator  of  his  work.  The 
architect  will  be  content  with  the  house  which  he  has 
built.  The  father  of  a  family  who  dwells  in  it  will 
perhaps  be  less  satisfied.  u  The  best  judge  of  a  feast 
is  not  the  cook,  but  the  guest.  ”f  Let  us  therefore 
acknowledge  the  competence  of  majorities,  u  if  they 
are  not  composed  of  the  degraded  mob.”  One  of  the 
incontestable  advantages  of  the  power  of  the  greatest 

*  Thucydides,  ii,  34. 

f  Politics,  ili,  G.  The  multitude  is,  iu  general,  better  than  the  indi¬ 
viduals.  “A  feast  of  contribution  (sjoavuç)  is  always  more  splendid 
than  one  of  which  the  expenses  are  defrayed  by  a  single  person.  The 
larger  the  body  of  water,  the  less  corruptible.”  In  the  Nicomachean 
Ethics ,  x,  10,  Aristotle  declares  the  mass  incapable  of  right  and  vir¬ 
tue.  He  stamps  them  with  forfeiture.  The  politician  has  invalidated 
the  unjust  sentence  of  the  moralist. 


260  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GBEECE. 

number  is  that  it  will  never  act  against  its  own  inter¬ 
ests.  On  the  contrary,  the  interests  of  a  monarch  and 
the  interests  of  his  subjects  are  different.  ( Second 
Olynthiac.) 

Æscliines  encouraged  Philip  to  enslave  Athens  by 
showing  him  the  weak  points  in  that  democracy;  more¬ 
over,  the  orator  who  delivered  the  keys  of  the  place  to 
the  invader  was  the  same  man  who,  in  reference  to  the 
unbridled  desires  of  Timarchus,  saw  the  height  of  crime 
in  an  attempt  upon  the  liberty  of  the  cities.  u  Here 
are  passions  which  filled  the  haunts  of  brigands,  made 
the  pirates  mount  their  swift  ships,  attempted  to  slaugh¬ 
ter  citizens,  to  serve  tyrants,  and  to  destroy  democ¬ 
racy,”  which,  according  to  Herodotus,  is  “the  most 
iniquitous  and  criminal  action  that  can  be  committed 
among  men.”  In  doing  homage  to  liberty,  the  Greeks 
paid  it  a  debt  of  acknowledgment;  for  their  greatness, 
since  the  expulsion  of  the  Pisistratidæ,  was  its  work. 
They  were  further  indebted  to  it  for  having  repulsed 
the  barbarians;  they  were  proclaimed  worthy,  and  born 
to  command  u  those  slaves  by  nature.”*  In  the  eyes 
of  the  Hellenes,  the  empire  was  the  legitimate  lot  of 
the  best,  and  Athens  pretended  to  rule  over  the  rest  of 
Greece,  an  ambition  which  other  great  cities  by  an 
equal  right  shared,  and  which  was  a  source  of  incurable 
evils  for  the  whole  nation. 

In  this  respect  Demosthenes  did  not  judge  his  fellow- 
citizens  with  impartiality. 

“  Your  good  nature  hinders  you  from  increasing  your  do¬ 
minion  and  usurping  power  ;  but  you  also  prevent  every  other 
state  from  seizing  power.  If  any  state  surprises  a  garrison, 
you  take  it  back.  In  short,  you  are  zealous  to  put  obstacles 

*  Aristotle,  Politics ,  i,  1  ;  Herodotus,  v,  78,  92. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


261 


in  the  way  of  all  who  are  ambitious  for  empire,  and  to  arouse 
all  people  to  liberty.” 

Athens  summoned  people  to  liberty  because  slie 
invigorated  herself  by  making  popular  governments  for 
her  allies.  But  did  she  never  abuse  her  hegemony, 
and  was  not  the  very  cruelty  of  her  authority  one  of 
the  causes  of  her  defeat  by  Lysander  ?  It  was  not  the 
arts  of  Athens,  nor  even  her  pleasures,  that  ruined  her 
in  the  struggle  with  Sparta,  but  the  burden  of  tyran¬ 
ny,  intolerable  to  her  allies,  and  her  haughty  preten¬ 
sions  which  her  political  wisdom  or  virtues  did  not 
then  justify.  Athens  ruled  over  Greece  during  a 
period  of  seventy-three  years,  Lacedæmon  during 
twenty -nine.  Thebes,  after  Leuctra,  received  this  in¬ 
heritance.  None  of  the  three  cities  knew  how  to  pre¬ 
serve  it.  The  Thebans  made  themselves  insupportable 
by  their  pride  and  arrogance.  Master  of  the  Acropolis 
at  Athens,  Lysander,  dressed  like  a  priest,  the  minister 
of  divine  vengeance,  immolated  with  his  own  hand  the 
Athenian  general  Philocles,  a  signal  for  the  slaughter 
of  three  thousand  prisoners.  Athens  was  more  humane 
in  respecting  the  rights  of  war,  but  with  what  crimes 
she  can  be  reproached  !  By  decimating  themselves  in 
turn,  the  preponderating  cities  had  prepared  the  way 
for -the  Macedonian.  Under  the  pretext  of  watching 
with  jealous  care  Hellenic  equilibrium,  they  sacrificed 
harmony,  that  is  to  say,  national  power,  for  the  passion 
of  equality. 

No  one  ever  suffered,  said  Demosthenes,  the  city 
invested  with  the  hegemony  to  abuse  its  power,  and 
to-day  all  allow  Philip  to  mutilate  and  pillage  Greece 
at  his  will. 

“And  you  must  be  sensible  that  whatever  wrong  the 
Greeks  sustained  from  Lacedaemonians,  or  from  us,  was  at 


262 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE, 


least  indicted  by  genuine  people  of  Greece;  and  it  might  be 
felt  in  the  same  manner  as  if  a  lawful  son,  born  to  a  lar^e 
fortune,  committed  some  fault  or  error  in  the  management 
of  it.  On  that  ground  one  would  consider  him  open  to  censure 
and  reproach,  yet  it  could  not  be  said  that  he  was  an  alien, 
and  not  heir  to  the  property  which  he  so  dealt  with.  But 
if  a  slave  or  a  spurious  child  wasted  and  spoiled  what  he 
had  no  interest  in, —  heavens,  how  much  more  heinous  and 
hateful  would  all  have  pronounced  it!  And  yet,  in  regard 
to  Philip  and  his  conduct  they  feel  not  this,  although  he  is 
not  only  no  Greek  and  no  way  akin  to  Greeks,  but  not 
even  a  barbarian  of  a  place  honorable  to  mention;  in  fact, 
a  vile  fellow  of  Macedon,  from  which  a  respectable  slave 
could  not  be  purchased  formerly.”  * 

Yes,  Macedonia  was  disdained  before  Philip.  Philip 
was  feeble  and  small  in  the  beginning,  but  he  became 
great  on  account  of  the  divisions  into  which  the  Hel¬ 
lenic  family  splintered  their  forces,  and  this  was  due 
to  the  defiant  f  hostilities  of  cities  which  were  op¬ 
pressed  longer  and  more  imperiously  by  Athens  than 
by  any  other  state.  The  yoke  of  Philip,  the  cunning 
politician,  did  not  frighten  cities  that  were  wearied 
of  tyrannical  rule.  This  rule  was  insupportable, 
because  their  common  origin  and  equality  of  rights 
excited  a  most  irritated  jealousy  in  the  hearts  of  the 
subjects.  Demosthenes  was  indignant  at  seeing  a 
barbarian  use  with  impunity  a  license  which  had 
been  refused  in  Greece  to  Greeks.  lie  could  not  en¬ 
dure  the  idea  that  Athens,  after  a  long  and  glorious 
suzerainty,  should  abdicate  the  protectorship  of  the 
Hellenes.  We  can  understand  these  sentiments  of 

*  Third  Philippic ,  §  30. 

t  The  Athenians  sent  Proxenus  to  aicl  Phocis.  The  Phocidians 
rejected  their  savior;  they  suspected  that  lie  wished  to  seize  their 
cities,  which  were  shortly  afterward  destroyed  by  Philip. 


DEMOSTHENES - THE  ORATOR. 


263 


the  patriot;  but  should  he  be  astonished  at  the  ap¬ 
parent  indifference  of  states  which  witnessed  a  con¬ 
flict  between  two  masters,  the  most  dreaded  of  whom 
was  not  the  stranger?  During  the  grandest  epochs 
of  Grecian  history,  national  sentiment  was  not  unani¬ 
mous.  What  must  it  have  been  after  more  than 
a  century  of  internal  struggles,  reciprocal  defeats, 
moral  weakness  and  decay  ?  Athens  saved  Greece 
from  the  barbarians:  she  was  rewarded  by  the  con¬ 
sented  royalty  of  the  Hellenic  world;  but  she  abused 
her  power,  and  when  she  confronted  Philip  she  found 
herself  alone.  Her  heroism  in  the  present,  her  des¬ 
potism  in  the  past,  concurred  to  make  a  void  around 
her.  At  the  last  hour  Thebes  extended  her  hands  to 
her,  but  it  was  too  late.  The  rest  of  Greece  was  either 
forced  to  submit  to  Macedonian  law,  or  silently  ac¬ 
cepted  it.  Harely  do  nations  have  a  different  lot 
from  that  which  they  deserve,  and,  in  spite  of  fatality 
which  is  an  easy  excuse,  they  are  like  individuals, 
the  first  artisans  of  their  own  fortune. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS  IN  POLITICAL  DEBATES  AT 

ATHENS. 

“  ’Ayœvaç  fiy  jwvov  r â%uuç  xdt  Xôyœv  /.oil  yvœ/j.7]ç,  y. at  rœv  aXXcuv 
ïpywv  âizdvTwv,  xàï  tootujv  àOXa  ply  tara.:  Athens  instituted  con- 
tests  not  only  of  agility  and  strength,  hut  also  of  eloquence  and 
learning,  and  of  all  other  accomplishments;  the  prizes  for  these 
were  magnificent.”  (Isocrates,  Panegyric.) 

THE  individual  changes  manners  and  tastes  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  age;  the  universal  man,  who  represents 
humanity,  changes  inclinations  and  knowledge  accord¬ 
ing  to  countries  and  centuries.  To  note  the  physiog¬ 
nomy  peculiar  to  each  race,  and  to  replace  the  works 
of  different  ages  in  the  period  which  gave  them  birth, 
is  the  principle  of  historical  criticism.  Neglected  by 
the  ancients,  and  their  scrupulous  imitators  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  this  principle  has  been  imposed 
since  the  eighteenth  century  upon  all  careful  criticism 
of  justice  and  truth.  Beyond  this  we  can  “trifle,” 
according  to  Pope’s  expression,  but  never  criticise. 
Faithful  to  this  method,  let  us  seek  in  the  artistic 
spirit  and  in  certain  moral  dispositions  of  the  Greeks 
an  exact  understanding  of  their  eloquence. 

In  the  orations  On  the  Embassy  and  On  the  Crown, 
Demosthenes’  contest  against  Æschincs  is,  in  certain 
respects,  confounded  with  his  contest  against  Philip. 
Here  the  orator  endeavors  to  unmask  the  prevaricat¬ 
ing  ambassador;  then,  conquered  by  Philip  and  his 
allies  in  the  Agora,  subject  to  public  hatred  as  the 

2C4 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS, 


265 


author  of  irreparable  disasters,  he  glories  in  having 
been  the  soul  of  the  struggle  in  which  his  country 
succumbed;  and  while  his  adversary,  apparently  justi¬ 
fied  by  Chæronea,  wishes  to  humiliate  and  defeat  his 
rival,  Demosthenes,  confounding  his  cause  with  that 
of  the  city,  establishes  between  the  minister  of  Athens, 
Athens  herself,  and  the  gods,  a  joint  and  several  lia¬ 
bility,  which  forces  the  Athenians  to  choose  between 
the  justification  of  Demosthenes  and  the  condemna¬ 
tion  of  the  heroes  of  Marathon.  Demosthenes  so 
well  pleads  his  cause  and  the  nation’s  honor,  that 
»  the  people  proclaim,  to  the  confusion  of  Æschines, 
that  the  inspirer  of  Chæronea  lias  well  served  his 
country.  Never  was  there  a  more  imposing  spectacle 
than  to  see  a  people  avenging  themselves  upon  their 
conquerors  by  a  magnificent  protestation  of  right 
against  power,  of  duty  against  interest.  Never  did 
a  finer  work  of  oratory  honor  the  political  tribune. 
Such  is  the  great  contest  between  Demosthenes  and 
yEschines,  and  the  two  great  orations  in  which  the 
struggle  manifested  itself  with  the  greatest  splendor; 
but,  without  exposing  ourselves  to  the  reproach  of 
weakening  such  works  and  diminishing  such  intel¬ 
lectual  giants,  let  us  consider  them  under  different 
aspects.  Demosthenes  was  not  merely  a  public  coun¬ 
sellor,  animated  against  Æscliines  by  a  patriotic 
hatred;  he  was  also  his  rival  in  eloquence.  In  him 
the  artist  is  united  with  the  citizen,  and  in  this  grave 
and  generous  figure,  passions  and  certain  individual 
traits  enable  us  to  recognize  in  the  minister  of  state 
the  man  and  the  Athenian.  Still  more  clearly  do  we 
see  the  rival  and  artist  appear  in  yEschines,  who  was 

always  an  orator  rather  than  a  citizen. 

«/ 

Demosthenes’  hearers  were  artists  charmed  with  elo- 
12 


266 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GEEECE. 


quent  language.  They  esteemed  it  so  highly  that  Æs- 
cliines,  in  order  to  induce  them  to  surrender  to  Philip, 
did  not  forget  to  praise  the  Macedonian’s  eloquence. 
They  listened  to  their  orators  as  virtuosos;  they  as¬ 
sisted  in  the  debates  at  the  tribune  like  assistants  at  a 
concert, —  a  spectacle  that  was  intended  to  charm  the 
mind  and  ear  equally.  Panegyrical  orations,  says  Isoc¬ 
rates,  in  which  the  interests  of  the  cities  or  of  entire 
Greece  are  discussed,  have,  as  all  know,  a  great  anal¬ 
ogy  to  rhythmical  and  musical  compositions,  and  afford 
the  same  pleasure  to  the  hearer.*  The  people,  said 
Cicero,  are  very  sensitive  to  harmony.  “If  the  poet 
wrongly  uses  a  long  or  short  syllable  in  a  verse,  the 
whole  theater  will  cry  out.”  In  the  forum,  on  the 
contrary,  the  assembly  loudly  applauded  a  happy  con¬ 
clusion  of  a  clichoreus.\  The  city  of  Minerva  was  even 
more  delicate  in  this  respect.  The  Athenians  turned 
their  attention  from  the  most  important  reasoning  to 
ridicule,  an  unusual  formula  of  oath,  or  a  mistake  in 
the  pronouncing  of  accents.  An  ungraceful  movement 
of  the  shoulders,  a  gesture  abrupt  or  ill  suited  to  the 
words,  an  unaccustomed  expression,  excited  the  up¬ 
roar  of  the  Pnyx.  This  was  sufficient  to  draw  the 
ridicule  of  the  comic  poets.  On  the  tribune,  and  even 
before  a  modest  tribunal,  the  Athenian  orator  was  like 
an  actor  on  the  stage.  lie  had  to  satisfy  in  every 
point  the  artistic  exigencies  of  his  audience.  Virtue 
is  more  pleasing  when  enhanced  by  the  beauty  of  the 
body.  On  the  same  ground,  physical  imperfections 
at  Athens  depreciated  eloquence  and  compromised  its 
success.  Pclisson  is  said  to  have  abused  the  permis- 

*  Antidosis ,  §§  4G,  47. 

t  Patris  dictum  sapiens,  temeritas  filii  cômprobüvit.  ( Orat 50, 
51, G3.) 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


267 


sion  accorded  to  men  of  being  ugly.  Paris  was  more 
indulgent  than  Athens.  Socrates  was,  perhaps,  the 
only  Hellene  whose  ugliness  the  Athenians  overlooked; 
and  it  is  possible  that  he  might  have  escaped  the  hem¬ 
lock  if  he  had  had  the  beauty  of  Alcibiades. 

The  suitors  of  Demosthenes’  civil  cases  were  often 
wanting  in  these  seducing  advantages,  which  were  lav¬ 
ished  on  this  favorite  of  the  Athenians.  They  excused 
themselves  for  it  as  best  they  could.  If  their  exterior 
leaves  much  to  be  desired,  they  are,  nevertheless, 
brave  people.  “  My  figure,”  said  Apollodorus,  “is 
not  agreeable,  my  walk  precipitated,  my  voice  hoarse. 
I  know  it,  Athenians.  I  am  not  one  of  those  whom 
nature  has  favored.  These  defects  which  are  offensive 
have  many  a  time  done  me  harm,  but  ”  *  *  *  All 
that  did  not  prevent  him  from  being  superior  to  his 
adversary  Stephanus,  and  from  being  in  the  right 
against  him.  Nicobulus  asked  Pantœnetus  for  a  sum 
of  money  which  he  had  loaned  him.  The  debtor  es¬ 
sayed  to  pay  him  in  abuse.  He  gave  him  the  title  of 
a  great  trotter  ( ~a/b  /?«ôc'!V'),  as  if  justice  were  measured 
by  the  length  of  the  strides. 

“As  to  my  gait,  to  my  manner  of  speaking,  judges,  I  will 
frankly  speak  of  it.  I  know  myself,  I  know  my  defects.  *  *  * 
The  only  profit  they  bring  me  is  to  displease  some  citizens. 
Is  this  not  unfortunate  for  me?  But  what  am  I  to  do? 
When  I  loan  money,  is  this  a  reason  that  it  should  not  be 
given  back  to  me.,  and  that  I  should  even  be  made  to  pay  a 
fine?  Assuredly  not!  *  *  *  It  seems  to  me  that  each  person 
is  as  nature  made  him.  To  destroy  her  works  is  impossible. 
If  this  were  not  so  we  should  all  resemble  one  another.” 

My  opposing  party  is  ugly,  therefore  he  is  wrong. 
My  creditor  stammers,  then  we  are  acquitted.  These 
abusive  deductions  were  feared  by  plaintiffs  who  were 


268 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


deformed  by  nature,  and  forced  them  to  offer  candid 
excuses. 

Among  the  sj^ectacles  which  made  Athens  an  en¬ 
chanted  abode  there  was  none  more  popular  than  ora¬ 
torical  contests, —  real  feasts  of  intellect,  in  which  the 
sentiment  of  art  too  easily  effaced  that  of  justice.  The 
Athenians,  like  tine  connoisseurs,  delighted  in  this  recre¬ 
ation  without  caring  much  about  the  cause  itself.  Æsclii- 
nes  regretted  the  good  old  times  which  his  father  Atro- 
metus,  an  old  man  of  ninety -five  years,  praised,  when 
judges  were  more  attentive  to  their  business.  u  Nothing 
is  so  ridiculous,  on  the  contrary,  as  that  which  is  prac¬ 
ticed  in  our  days.  The  clerk  reads  the  decree  of  the 
accused;  the  judges,  inattentive  and  distracted,  listen  to 
the  reading  as  if  it  were  a  foreign  detail  or  a  song 
(ê-wrLjv).”  *  Formerly  the  heliasts  demanded  that  the 
laws  and  decrees  which  determined  their  decisions 
should  be  read  and  re-read  before  them,  as  in  archi¬ 
tecture  the  plummet  is  used  to  determine  whether  a 
wall  is  perpendicular.  The  hearers  of  Æschines  and 
Demosthenes  were  especially  fond  of  eloquence  which 
would  hold  them  spell-bound.  As  for  the  subject  of 
the  trial,  it  was  often  left  in  the  shade.  The  accused 
was  interested  in  flattering  this  disposition  of  the  tribu¬ 
nal;  he  turned  his  attention  from  the  principal  point 
and  readily  devoted  himself  to  agreeable  digressions. 
The  clepsydra  measures  the  time  easily,  the  day  has 
fled,  and  the  meeting  breaks  up  without  having  pun¬ 
ished  either  of  the  two  parties.”  See  how,  in  defiance 
of  the  oath  of  the  heliasts, —  UI  will  pass  a  sentence 
on  the  subject  of  the  debate,” — the  trial  of  the  Embassy 
was  without  result. 

*  Tlic  Roman  judges  gave  place  to  far  greater  scandals,  if  we  can 
give  credence  to  a  fragment  of  Caius  Titius. 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


269 


Above  all  things  the  orator  was  obliged  to  please 
such  hearers, —  an  obligation  imposed  on  Demosthenes 
more  imperiously  than  on  any  other  orator,  for  he  had 
to  contend  against  Æscliines,  a  rough  warrior  armed 
with  all  the  advantages  of  eloquence  and  a  noble  phy¬ 
sique,  and  also  assisted  by  the  weakness  of  the  Athe¬ 
nians.  Demosthenes,  therefore,  could  not  neglect  any 
of  the  resources  of  his  art  in  order  to  captivate  an 
artistic  people  and  to  triumph,  by  the  charm  of  his 
diction  as  much  as  by  the  solidity  of  his  arguments, 
over  the  repugnance  of  effeminate  citizens  who  were 
little  disposed  to  the  self-denial  which  their  austere 
duty  demanded  of  them.  Demosthenes  has  more  than 
once  marked  this  necessity  of  charming  the  Athenians 
in  order  to  save  them.  What  must  be  done  to  make 
them  favorably  disposed?  “We  must  not  only  skill¬ 
fully  display  oratorical  manners,  but  especially  must  we 
move  them  by  the  invincible  allurement  of  a  beautiful 
language.”  Justly  convinced  of  the  power  of  words  to 
govern  men,  and  in  particular  the  Athenians,  Demos¬ 
thenes  washed  to  be  an  accomplished  orator;  he  had  a 
love  for  the  art,  and  he  was  patriotic.  This  was  the 
salvation  of  the  commonwealth.  Therefore  Demosthe¬ 
nes’  eagerness  to  penetrate  the  hearts  of  his  fellow- 
citizens  through  this  avenue,  outside  of  which  the  orator 
must  necessarily  go  astray.  Therefore  the  careful  re¬ 
visions  of  those  parts  which  he  esteemed  the  surest  to 
make  an  artistic  and  moral  impression;  therefore  his 
repetitions  distasteful  to  our  modern  customs,  and 
before  which  ancient  ingenuousness  did  not  recoil; 
therefore,  finally,  the  refusal  to  mount  the  rostrum 
without  being  prepared.*  Moderately  endowed  with 
promptitude  of  imagination,  so  necessary  to  an  improv- 

*  These  different  points  have  been  treated  in  cli.  v. 


270 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


isatore,  Demosthenes  feared  to  trust  to  the  accidents 
of  inspiration,  and  by  a  possible  failure  to  compromise 
the  authority  of  a  single  word  necessary  to  the  welfare 
of  the  state.  Thus  Demosthenes  prepared  himself,  in 
the  studious  contemplations  of  his  closet,  to  be  persua¬ 
sive  on  the  rostrum.  He  ascended  it  provided  with  all 
his  arms,  and  confident  that  he  was  master  of  his  deli¬ 
cate  hearers,  wdiom  it  was  difficult  to  satisfy,  but  who 
were  easily  led  by  a  man  capable  of  pleasing  them  with 
generous  sentiments  and  exhibitions  of  art. 

Among  the  most  desirable  virtues,  the  Greeks  place 
the  virtue  of  antagonism , — a  composition  of  stature,  ve¬ 
locity  and  strength.  This  virtue,  one  of  the  elements 
of  happiness,  won  the  admiration  of  the  Greeks  at  the 
great  national  games.  Pindar  extolled  the  runners  and 
pugilists  who  were  crowned  at  Olympia  as  the  most 
glorious  of  mortals.  This  virtue  delighted  the  people 
at  the  theater,  where  the  comic  and  tragic  poets  offered 
them  two  spectacles  equally  enjoyable,  contests  of  pas¬ 
sions  and  contests  of  intellect.  Antagonistic  virtue 
even  delighted  the  tribunals,  witnesses  of  fencing 
combats  in  which  the  vigor  and  vivacity  of  the  mind 
were  displayed.  Æschines  and  Demosthenes  some¬ 
times  used  comparisons  which  made  their  debates  re¬ 
semble  gymnastic  contests.  Yisconti  mentions  two 
statues  of  Lysias  and  Isocrates  represented  as  athletes, 
emblematic  of  the  analogy  between  the  contests  in  the 
arena  and  those  of  the  tribune  and  bar.  In  the  ath¬ 
letic  engagements  of  the  judicial  class,  the  antagonists 
could  practice  the  definition  of  bodily  strength  given 
by  Aristotle: 

“  Strength  is  the  ability  which  one  man  has  to  move  an¬ 
other  as  he  wishes;  now,  he  can  move  him  only  by  pulling, 
or  pushing,  or  raising,  or  bending,  or  crushing  him.  The 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


271 


strong  man,  then,  will  be  strong  in  consequence  of  all  these 
abilities  or  some  of  them.” 

Æschines  and  Demosthenes  excelled  in  this  strength 
which  they  manifested  in  their  pleadings  and  in  those 
mixed  orations  which  belong  both  to  political  eloquence 
and  to  the  eloquence  of  the  bar,  and  which  wonderful¬ 
ly  complies  with  flexibilities  of  all  kinds.  The  idea  of 
competition,  of  contest  was  one  of  the  essential 

ideas  of  the  Greek  mind;  we  meet  it  on  every  page  of 
their  works.  Thus  Demosthenes  compared  the  war 
between  Athens  and  Philip  to  a  contest  in  which  the 
prizes  would  be  Chalcidia  and  Thrace.  The  ideas  of 
a  people  are  the  natural  reflection  of  their  morals.  The 
life  of  an  Athenian  was  an  exercise  of  perpetual  emu¬ 
lation.  Athens  had  competitions  in  strength,  activity, 
intellect,  and  beauty  :  rewards  were  offered  for  excel- 
lence  in  all  these  talents. 

The  inclination  among  the  Greeks  for  antagonism  had 
its  source  in  the  spirit  of  emulation  and  a  strong  desire 
for  glory.  Glory  was  their  ruling  passion,  their  only 
desire  according  to  Horace  ( prceter  laudem  nullius 
avaris).  After  the  athlete  Timanthes  became  old,  he 
exercised  in  archery;  for  his  love  of  glory  did  not  grow 
old.  A  voyage  compelled  him  to  suspend  exercise.  On 
his  return  he  felt  that  his  strength  was  waning:  he 
erected  his  funeral  pile  and  threw  himself  into  the 
flames.  He  lost  his  strength  and  his  hope  to  vanquish; 
he  deemed  himself  unworthy  of  living.  The  rliapso- 
dist  Niceratus,  forced  to  yield  the  palm  for  declamation 
to  Pratys,  did  not  die  a  tragic  death,  but  from  that  mo¬ 
ment  he  let  his  hair  grow  and  took  no  care  of  his  per¬ 
son.  To  receive  a  crown  at  the  theater  on  the  day  of 
the  new  tragedies,  not  from  the  whole  people,  which 
would  be  too  high  an  ambition  for  most  men,  but  from 


272 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


3* 


his  deme,  from  his  tribe,  was  at  Athens  the  dream  of 
the  most  unpretending.  Wealthy  citizens  sometimes 
set  their  slaves  free;  in  return,  they  enjoyed  the  pleas¬ 
ure  of  having  their  names  proclaimed  by  the  herald  in 
the  presence  of  all  the  Greeks.  The  generals  likewise 
envied  this  popular  honor.  Charidemus  and  Diotimus 
furnished  eight  hundred  shields  for  the  young  recruits; 
Nausicles  supported  two  thousand  soldiers  at  his  own 
expense.  What  was  to  be  the  greatest  recompense  for 
these  patriotic  sacrifices  ?  A  crown  at  the  Panathenæa. 
The  orators  could  not  be  less  sensitive  to  public  hom¬ 
age,  and  the  means  for  them  to  acquire  it  was  to  excel 
in  intellectual  contests. 

II.  Their  political  debates  were  sometimes  trans¬ 
formed  into  oratorical  jousts.  Deliberative  eloquence 
was  then  confined  to  the  ejpidictic  class.  In  Demos¬ 
thenes’  eyes,  Ctesiphon’s  accuser  did  not  seriously 
think  of  receiving  justice  for  pretended  misdemeanors, 
but  he  merely  desired  to  display  his  talent  Ird- 

two).  In  fact,  in  their  apparently  most  infuriated 
duels  the  Greeks  sometimes  aimed  at  a  literary  success 
as  well  as  personal  vengeance.  They  wished  to  strike 
their  adversary  cruelly,  but  with  art.  Æschines  and 
Demosthenes,  bitterly  engaged  in  a  spirited  discussion, 
endeavored  to  crush  each  other  under  the  weight  of 
the  reprobation  of  the  city,  but  they  also  desired,  in 
the  face  of  all  Greece,  to  display  their  oratorical  supe¬ 
riority.  For  this  reason  they  took  the  time  to  deliver 
themselves  of  their  academical  thrusts.  In  344  De¬ 
mosthenes  gave  a  presentiment  of  Æschines’  accusa¬ 
tion,  but  the  direct  and  formal  attack  was  not  made 
until  342,  five  years  after  the  questionable  embassy. 
Demosthenes  attributed  this  delay  fb  an  honorable 
motive, —  a  desire  not  to  trouble  the  state  with  unsea- 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


273 


sonable  debates  when  it  was  engaged  in  such  diffi¬ 
culties  with  Philip.  “I  have  said  enough  to  awaken 
your  remembrances.  Save  us,  great  gods,  from  a 
rigorous  examination  of  these  perfidies!”  JEschines, 
in  his  turn,  did  not  deliver  his  speech  against  Ctesi- 
phon  until  330.  He  had,  it  is  true,  from  338  until  the 
day  after  Chæronea,  attacked  the  motion  of  Demos¬ 
thenes’  friend,  but  the  sjDeeches  had  been  delayed  eight 
years.*  Why  this  long  postponement  ? 

This  is  one  of  Demosthenes’  favorite  objections.  He 
constantly  referred  to  it  in  order  to  edify  the  judges  on 
the  honesty  of  his  enemy.  If  I  was  culpable,  why  not 
denounce  me  at  the  very  moment  of  the  misdemeanor, 
and  convict  me,  taken  in  the  act  %  ‘ 4  What  would  you 

think  of  a  physician  who,  having  prescribed  nothing 
for  a  patient  during  his  illness,  comes  after  his  death 
to  the  ceremonies  of  the  ninth  day  to  tell  his  parents 
in  detail  the  remedies  which  would  have  cured  him  ?  ” 
In  the  very  midst  of  gfeat  events,  you  would  not  have 
dared  to  traduce  me.  The  evidence  of  facts  and  public 
indignation  would  have  confounded  you.  To-day  the 
time  seems  favorable  to  insult  me,  44  as  if  from  the 
summit  of  a  rubbish-cart,”  and  to  pay  your  respects  to 
Alexander.  To  the  embarrassing  reproaches  of  De¬ 
mosthenes,  Æschines  replied  with  fine  sentiments,  and 
especially  with  a  recital  of  injuries  : 

“  After  the  battle  we  had  no  leisure  to  think  of  your  pun¬ 
ishment.  While  sent  on  the  embassy  we  labored  for  the 
safety  of  our  country.  But,  not  satisfied  with  impunity,  you 
solicited  rewards;  you  made  Athens  an  object  of  laughter  to 

*  The  judges  did  not  press  the  matter  more  than  the  orators.  De¬ 
mosthenes  tells  us  of  an  action  brought  against  Midias,  and  pending 
eight  years.  The  pede  Pœna  claudo  of  Horace  applies  too  well  to  the 
lame  justice  of  Athens. 


f 


274  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

the  rest  of  Greece!  Then  I  arose  and  accused  you.  *  *  * 
My  silence,  Demosthenes,  was  due  to  the  simplicity  of  my 
life.  Content  with  little,  I  do  not  desire  to  enrich  myself  by 
dishonest  means.  Thus  I  speak,  I  am  silent  because  of  reflec¬ 
tion.  But  you!  when  paid  you  become  mute;  when  the  gold 
is  gone,  you  cry  out.  You  neither  speak  in  your  place,  nor 
in  accordance  with  your  convictions,  but  you  are  subject  to 
him  who  hires  you.* 

Besides  these  motives,  false  or  sincere,  there  is 
another  motive,  not  avowed,  but  powerful.  If  the 
adversaries  defer  hostilities  during  long  years,  it  is  in 
order  to  assure  themselves  of  greater  chances  of  vic¬ 
tory.  Delay  is  not  prejudicial  to  them.  Therefore, 
instead  of  denouncing  the  enemy  when  it  would  be 
most  useful  to  the  state,  they  patiently  watch  for  the 
most  favorable  moment  to  humiliate  a  rival.  The 
affair  can  be  carried;  the  opportunity  becomes  auxili¬ 
ary  to  the  artist.  Demosthenes  had  good  reasons  for 
not  being  mistaken,  and  he  betrayed  his  adversary’s 
secret  when  he  said  :  “Æschines  wished  to  accuse 
me  at  his  opportunity  and  at  his  ease.”  To-day  he 
enters  the  lists.  He  imagines,  it  seems,  that  you  have 
come  to  assist  in  an  oratorical  contest  (/fy™ pq>v  àyœvct^ 
and  not  to  examine  a  minister’s  conduct;  to  pass  judg¬ 
ment  on  the  beauties  of  language,  and  not  to  weigh 
the  interests  of  the  state. 

Demosthenes  himself  sometimes  sacrificed  to  ora¬ 
torical  cares.  When  outraged  by  Midias  in  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  his  functions  as  choregus,  he  prepared  numer¬ 
ous  memoirs  against  that  insulter.  He  confessed  that 
he  had  written  carefully  the  speech  in  which  he  de¬ 
manded  justice.  He  invoked  the  people  against  the 
impious  Midias  with  all  the  vehemence,  hatred  and 

*  Against  Ctesiphon ,  §§  218,  225,  227. 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


275 


ability  possible,  then,  when  his  work  wTas  finished,  he 
left  it  in  his  portfolio.  It  seems  that  his  desire  was 
less  to  pronounce  it  than  to  write  it.  The  author  of 
an  oration  full  of  bitterness  and  gall, —  a  virulent 
pamphlet  in  which  he  swears  to  be  inexorable, —  De¬ 
mosthenes  suddenly  disarms  himself  and  sheathes  his 
sword.  He  subsides  and  Midias  is  spared  his  life. 
This  unexpected  event  warrants  this  conclusion:  vio¬ 
lated  law,  outraged  religion  and  danger  of  the  public 
safety,  were  not  the  orator’s  only  cares  and  considera¬ 
tions  in  his  oration  against  Midias.  By  the  side  of 
a  satisfaction  for  damage,  he  placed  a  satisfaction  of 
self-love.  lie  produced  this  masterpiece  of  invective 
through  his  hatred  for  Midias  and  his  love  for  honor, 
lie  wished  to  inflict  on  his  enem}T  the  punishment  of 
a  posthumous  disgrace,  and  to  leave  to  posterity  an 
imperishable  monument  of  his  eloquence. 

In  order  to  carry  off  the  palm  in  the  contests  at  the 
bar,  there  were  no  artifices  which  adversaries  did  not 
employ.  They  vied  with  each  other  in  the  artifices 
of  court  (- alaiajm  duaffrypUiu').  They  exchanged  the 
epithets  of  sophists,  monkeys,  foxes;  that  is  to  say,  of 
knavish  and  sly  rogues.  Demosthenes  said  Æschines 
is  like  the  finest  flour  (y:  at- dir]  pa),  capable  of  passing 
through  the  finest  sieve.  He  turns  here  and  there;  he 
changes  every  moment.  Æschines  was  even  sharper. 
An  old  pettifogging  knave  ( Tzepirpipim  àyopà':'),  he  slipped 
from  between  the  hands  of  his  antagonist  and  escaped 
the  greatest  embarrassments.  He  was  u  clever  at  all 
things  treacherous  (-avoD/yuç).”  *  Panurge, 

*  Strepsiadcs,  in  the  Clouds:  “Let  them  (the  sophists)  do  what 
they  please  with  me.  I  deliver  my  body  to  them.  Blows,  hunger, 
thirst,  heat,  cold,  are  of  little  importance.  Let  them  llay  me,  pro¬ 
viding  that  I  escape  my  debts, —  providing  that  I  have  the  reputation 


276 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


in  Rabelais,  practiced  sixty-tliree  methods  of  procuring 
money  when  in  need.  The  most  honest  was  to  steal. 
The  champions  of  the  Greek  tribune  likewise  left  no 
stone  unturned.  Dissimulations,  inventions  of  every 
kind,  alteration  of  dates,  facts  and  texts, —  all  arms 
were  lawful  if  they  aided  in  vanquishing  the  enemy. 
Truth,  right,  respect  for  one’s  self  and  for  others,  were 
of  little  importance.  Success  acquitted  the  orator  of 
everything.  Did  not  grave  and  serious  Pindar  write 
that  “we  must  do  everything  in  order  to  triumph  over 
our  enemies  ”  ?  *  In  his  definition  of  power,  in  which 
he  makes  a  complete  enumeration  of  the  methods  by 
which  a  man  can  be  moved,  Aristotle  says  nothing  of 
a  method  proscribed  at  the  public  games,  but  which 
was  held  in  high  esteem  by  the  tribunals,  namely, 
tripping  the  adversary  {o-offy.tXi^e^y  Philip  practiced 
this  against  the  Gréek  cities.  The  wrestlers  of  the  ju¬ 
dicial  and  political  arena  had  no  scruples  in  employing 
it:  'f'  hence  the  agility  and  flexibility  of  their  argumen¬ 
tation  and  the  stratagems  with  which  they  reproached 
one  another,  and  yet  had  recourse  to  them. 

An  Athenian  orator’s  aim  was  at  first  to  have  right, 

of  being  a  bold  knave,  a  ready  talker,  impudent,  brazen-faced,  noisy,, 
skillful  to  weave  lies,  an  old  stager  of  chicanery,  a  real  table  of  laws, 
a  word-mill,  a  fox  that  passes  through  every  hole,  as  supple  as 
leather,  as  slippery  as  an  eel,  an  insincere  and  crimeful  braggart,  a 
cheat  with  a  hundred  faces,  crafty  and  unbearable,  fond  of  good 
dishes.  Such  are  the  names  with  which  I  wish  to  be  saluted.  On 
this  condition  let  them  treat  me  as  they  please;  and,  if  they  wislq 
by  Ceres  !  let  them  make  a  pudding  of  me  and  serve  me  up  to  the 
philosophers!  ” 

*Àprj  ôè  rrâv  epdovr  à /j.au  pour  ai  rov  èyOpôv.  {Third  Isthmiac,  81.) 

f  Plato  compares  the  rhetoricians  playing  with  the  quibbles  of 
sophistry  to  “those  who  place  their  foot  before  you  in  order  to  make 
you  fall,  or  who  remove  your  chair  when  you  are  about  to  sit  down, 
and  then  laugh  heartily  when  they  see  you  on  the  ground.” 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


277 


or  the  appearance  of  right,  clothed  in  good  language, 
then  to  delight  his  hearers  with  eloquent  words  as  often 
and  as  long  as  possible.  With  Demosthenes,  said 
Æschines,  it  is  difficult  to  find  place  to  say  a  word; 
Æschines,  replied  Demosthenes,  is  not  a  man  who 
yields  to  anyone:  u  He  would  give  his  blood  sooner 
than  any  of  his  oration.”  This  was  an  allusion  to 
the  clepsydra  that  measured  the  orator’s  time.*  The 
rivalry  of  the  two  adversaries  often  bordered  on  jeal¬ 
ousy;  that  of  Demosthenes  appeared  “hyperbolical  ”  to 
Æschines.  Perhaps  he  was  not  exempt  from  it.  At  one 
time  he  paints  his  adversary  as  an  incomparable  ora¬ 
tor,  a  prodigious  statesman,  carrying  his  head  high 
and  cheered  by  the  assembly,  then  descending  from 
the  rostrum  with  “great  majesty”  (jxâka  a z;jytbq).  At 
another  time  he  makes  malicious  allusions  to  the 
physical  advantages,  and  to  certain  superiorities  of 
his  rival.  Demosthenes  refused  to  improvise:  Æs¬ 
chines  was  always  ready.  Demosthenes  never  let 
his  lamp  go  out, —  slowly,  laboriously  he  prepared  his 
way.  Æschines  seemed  to  ignore  the  work  of  the  file 

*  On  August  3,  1789,  a  member  of  the  National  Assembly  pro¬ 
posed  that  the  president  have  a  Jive  minute  hour-glass  on  his  desk, 
in  order  that  when  the  five  minutes  were  passed  the  orator  might 
be  invited  to  sit  down.  An  ecclesiastic  immediately  asked  that  the 
president’s  watch  supply  the  place  of  the  proposed  hour-glass  for 
the  time  being.  An  orator  observed  that,  as  the  motion  had  not  yet 
been  adopted,  they  could  not  conform  to  it.  The  discussion  began: 
the  hour-glass  succumbed  to  it.  The  fear  of  going  beyond  the  pre¬ 
scribed  limit  might  trouble  the  orator  and  thereby  render  him 
“unintelligible.”  “  History  presents  to  us  but  one  epoch  in  which 
the  hour-glass  has  been  the  measure  of  eloquence.  *  *  *  To  enslave 
to  a  pendulum,  and  to  measure  the  right  of  the  representatives  of 
an  active  and  intellectual  nation,”  and  that  “  after  two  hundred 
years  of  despotism  ”  and  obligatory  silence,  was  an  unacceptable 
proposition,  etc.  The  Assembly  rejected  “  the  tyranny  of  the  dial.” 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


and  was  eloquent  by  nature.  Demosthenes  intention¬ 
ally  exaggerated  this  enviable  facility,  and  compared 
it  to  a  river  which  rolls  in  torrents.*  Demosthenes 
congratulated  Æschines  on  his  excellent  memory;  he 
himself  often  saw  his  weakness  in  this  respect.  Æs¬ 
chines  could  pronounce  long  tirades  in  “a  single 
breath”;  his  pronunciation  was  clear,  his  voice  har¬ 
monious  and  sonorous.  Both  were  faulty  in  Demos¬ 
thenes.  Several  times  Demosthenes  extolled  these 
qualities  of  Æschines.  That  admirable  declamation 
recalled  to  his  mind  his  own  long  and  painful  efforts 
to  correct  an  interrupted  respiration  and  his  faulty 
pronunciation;  therefore  his  eulogies  were  ironical 
and  impregnated  with  envy.  Æschines  is  well  adapted 
to  tragedy;  he  knows  how  to  assume  dignity  and 
to  acquit  himself  like  Solon.  He  is  a  “fine  statue,” 
and  what  lungs!  Never  had  a  public  crier  stronger 
lungs.  His  two  brothers  were  also  loud-talkers 
( ;j.tyaX<)<pio'M)t)\  it  is  a  family  characteristic. 

A  powerful  voice  was  an  advantage  particularly 
admired  by  the  ancients.  Cicero  appreciated  its  value, 
if  we  can  judge  from  this  remark:  “What  voice,  what 
lungs,  what  vigor  could  describe  this  outrage!”  Iron 
lungs  (  ferrea  vox)  were  indispensable  auxiliaries  be¬ 
fore  the  tumultuous  multitudes  of  the  forum  and  the 
Pnyx.  When  Æschines  harangued  the  Ten-Thousand 
in  Arcadia,  he  discovered  the  advantage  of  his.  Even 
in  the  halls  of  our  modern  assemblies,  a  weak  voice 
must  compromise  the  orator’s  victory,  if  the  meet¬ 
ing  is  a  stormy  one.  The  orator  needs  a  voice  capa¬ 
ble  of  mastering  the  tumult  and  the  audience.  Mira¬ 
beau  had  a  voice  that  was  pleasing  in  the  diapason 
of  seduction,  and  “  terriblv  resonant  in  the  accents 

*  ''Avid  Tzora/j-wv  ol  Xôyoi  kppurja av.  (On  the  Embassy.) 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


279 


of  fury.”  Could  he  have  been  master  of  the  assembly 
as  well  without  this  formidable  thunder  ? 

“  In  public  exercises  whoever  possesses  these  three  ad¬ 
vantages, —  a  powerful  voice,  harmony  and  rhythm, —  carries 
off  the  prize.  At  the  theaters  to-day,  the  comedians  carry 
off  the  palm  from  poets;  likewise  in  oratorical  contests 
(-oÀcTizouç  àfcùvaç),  the  orator  gifted  with  graceful  gestures 
is  the  favorite.”  * 

A  melodious  voice,  the  essential  element  of  action, 
must  have  exercised  a  strong  influence  over  the  musical 
and  artistic  organization  of  the  Athenians,  that  Demos¬ 
thenes  should  ridicule  Æscliines’  voice  with  such  sar¬ 
casm.  lie  sneered  at  it  on  every  occasion,  —  we  might 
say  that  he  refuted  it,  so  much  did  it  seem  to  be  an 
argument  in  favor  of  his  rival  and  a  natural  instrument 
of  victory.  AEschines  said  that  Demosthenes’  voice 
was  shrill  and  sharp  (o’çciav);  that  he  was  obliged  to 
modify  it  with  great  labor.  Æscliines  had  a  voice  like 
a  “siren,”  and  the  orator  of  the  Embassy  pleaded 
against  it  as  against  a  formidable  adversary. 

“  If  you  keep  watch  upon  him  thus,  he  will  have  nothing 
to  say,  but  will  raise  his  voice  here  and  have  exercised  him¬ 
self  in  spouting  all  to  no  purpose.  About  his  voice,  too,  it 
may  be  necessary  to  say  something;  for  I  hear  that  upon  this, 
also,  he  very  confidently  relies,  as  if  he  can  overpower  you  by 
his  acting.  I  think,  however,  you  would  be  committing  a 
gross  absurdity  if,  when  he  played  the  miseries  of  Thyestes 
and  the  men  of  Troy,  you  drove  and  hissed  him  off*  the  boards, 
and  nearly  stoned  him  to  death,  so  that  at  last  he  desisted 
from  his  playing  of  third-rate  parts;  yet  now  that,  not  upon 
the  stage,  but  in  public  and  most  important  affairs  of  state, 
he  has  wrought  infinity  of  evil,  you  should  pay  regard  to 
him  as  a  fine  speaker.  Heaven  forbid!  Do  not  you  be  guilty 


*  Aristotle,  Rhetoric ,  iii,  1. 


280 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


of  any  folly,  but  consider:  if  you  are  making  trial  of  a  herald, 
you  should  see  that  he  has  a  good  voice,  but  if  of  an  am¬ 
bassador  and  undertaker  of  public  duties,  that  he  is  honest, 
that  he  demeans  himself  with  spirit  as  your  representative 
like  a  fellow  citizen  toward  you.  *  *  *  Further,  when  you 
see  eloquence  or  a  fine  voice  or  any  other  such  accomplish¬ 
ment  in  a  man  of  probity  and  honorable  ambition,  you  should 
all  rejoice  at  it  and  encourage  its  display,  for  it  is  a  common 
advantage  to  you  all;  but  when  you  see  the  like  in  a  corrupt 
and  base  man,  who  yields  to  every  temptation  of  gain,  you 
should  discourage  and  hear  him  with  enmity  and  aversion;  as 
knavery,  getting  from  you  the  reputation  of  power,  is  an 
engine  against  the  state.  You  see  what  mighty  troubles  have 
fallen  upon  the  state  from  what  the  defendant  has  got  renown 
by.”  * 

The  ill-concealed  spite  which  these  qualities  of  Æs- 
cliines  inspired  in  Demosthenes  was  probably  aug¬ 
mented  by  a  circumstance  which  must  have  been  hu¬ 
miliating  to  our  orator.  Demosthenes’  spirit  of  emu¬ 
lation  often  involved  him  in  indirect  contests  with 
orators  whom  he  honored  by  seeming  jealous  of  their 
success.  In  the  oration  written  in  the  name  of  Andro- 
cles  against  Lacritus,  Isocrates’  pupil,  we  find  a  feeling 
of  sorrow  expressed  which  the  young  Demosthenes  felt 
because  he  was  unable  to  pay  that  famous  master  for 
lessons  which  were  held  at  too  high  a  price.  “As  for 
me,  by  Jupiter  and  all  thé  gods,  I  never  was  jealous  of 
sophists,  nor  did  I  blame  any  one  for  giving  money  to 
Isocrates.  It  would  be  folly  on  my  part  to  be  disturbed 
by  such  cares.”  He  did,  however,  trouble  himself  to 
vilify  an  art  which,  according  to  him,  did  not  recognize 
its  debts,  and  paid  its  creditors  with  falsehoods.  If 
such  seems  to  be  the  vivacity  of  Demosthenes’  feelings 


*  Embassy ,  §  337. 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


281 


as  regards  obscure  rivals,  what  must  have  been  his 
chagrin  when  a  solemn  oratorical  contest  appeared  to 
confuse  him  in  the  presence  of  the  Macedonian  king  ! 
Æschines  painted  this  scene,  and  his  malevolence  is 
evident;  nevertheless  the  truth  can  be  determined. 
The  deputies  were  deliberating  on  the  language  that 
they  should  use  before  the  king.  Demosthenes  prom¬ 
ised  that  he  would  “open  sources  of  never-failing  elo¬ 
quence,  and  that  he  would  sew  up  the  mouth  ”  of  the 
Macedonian  king.  Audience  was  given.  Demosthe¬ 
nes,  the  youngest  of  the  ambassadors  (as  he  says),  was 
invited  to  speak  last. 

“All  were  attentive,  and  relied  upon  words  of  irresistible 
weight,  for  his  magnificent  promises  had  even  reached  the 
cars  of  Philip  and  his  courtiers,  as  was  learned  later. 
When  all  his  hearers  were  thus  disposed,  the  lion  of  the 
tribune,  terrified  nearly  to  death,  muttered  a  dismal  exor¬ 
dium,  said  a  few  words  on  his  subject,  then  suddenly  ceased, 
became  disconcerted,  and  finally  could  not  say  one  word. 
Philip  seeing  his  embarrassment,  encouraged  him,  and  in¬ 
formed  him  that  he  ought  not  to  imagine  that  he  had  suffered 
the  disgrace  of  an  actor  at  the  theater.  He  invited  him  to 
meditate,  and,  after  recalling  his  memory,  to  continue.  But 
when  once  disturbed  and  the  thread  of  his  written  oration 
lost,  he  could  not  recover  himself,  and  further  efforts  were  of 
no  avail.  When  nothing  more  was  to  be  said  the  introducer 
asked  us  to  retire.  Philip’s  officers  called  us  back.  When 
we  returned  and  were  seated,  the  king  began  to  respond 
briefly  and  in  order  to  each  of  our  orations.  He  commented 
especially  on  mine,  and  justly,  since,  as  I  knew,  I  had  not 
emitted  anything  that  ought  to  be  said,  and  several  times  he 
pronounced  my  name.  As  for  Demosthenes,  whose  rôle  had 
been  so  ridiculous,  he  did  not  address  to  him  one  word,  as  I 
remember.  Thus  this  man  was  choked  with  anger.”  * 

12* 


*  Embassy ,  §  34. 


282 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Demosthenes  could  not  rest  under  this  defeat.  A 
second  trial  gave  him  some  hope  of  revenge;  this  time 
he  asked  to  speak  first,  but  without  much  more  success, 
according  to  Æschines.  This  fruitful  and  able  orator 
forgot  all  important  points.  He  said  what  he  ought  to 
have  passed  over  in  silence,  and  omitted  what  he  ought 
to  have  said.  Fortunately  JEschines  was  there;  he 
filled  up  the  gaps  in  Demosthenes’  flat  and  ridiculous- 
harangue  and  screened  his  impertinences. 

!  .  .  .  ‘  •  4  '*  -  *  »  v  ;  •  i 

III.  And  so,  even  in  the  presence  of  the  invader^ 
the  ministers  of  Athens,  invested  with  her  powers, 
responsible  for  her  salvation,  remembered  their  ora¬ 
torical  rivalries.  They  persisted  in  their  little  passions 
of  rivalry,  and  did  so  in  the  finest  language. 

It  is  astonishing  to  find  them  rival  artists  in  their 
private  debates  ?  They  were  almost  as  attentive  in 
their  appreciation  of  words  as  of  actions.  At  one  time 
Demosthenes  praises  yEscliines’  brevity;  more  often  he 
criticises  his  long  speeches;  or  he  even  offers  an  appro¬ 
bation,  an  involuntary  homage,  to  a  talent  which  “  has 
charmed  every  Athenian.”  Æschines  turns  Demos¬ 
thenes’  vehement  action  into  ridicule.  He  counter¬ 
feits  his  attitude  when  about  to  begin  his  speech;  he 
rubs  his  head  (rpi^aq  xrp  he  ridicules  some  of 

his  gestures,  “as  if  the  safety  of  Greece  depended  on 
a  word  and  the  motion  of  his  hand.”  He  censures  an 
expression,  a  metaphor.  He  amuses  himself  by  play¬ 
ing  the  rhetorician,  in  the  oration  On  the  Grown ,  in 
the  midst  of  a  discussion  which  was  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  ever  tried  before  the  people  whose  honor  was  at 
stake  in  the  suit.  What  does  he  mean  by  saying  to 
“extort”  the  alliance  of  peace,  instead  of  using  the 
word  “separate”?  Is  this  not  a  term  as  displeasing 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


283 


as  the  man  who  permits  it  ?  Demosthenes  boasts  of 
having  fortified  “our  city  with  walls  of  brass  and 
steel.”*  What  pride  and  what  presuming  language! 
Is  it  in  good  taste  to  say:  “The  Pythian  priestess 
pliilippizes  ?  ”  This  disrespectful  manner  of  speaking 
is  characteristic  of  an  ignoramus.  Æschines,  in  his 
turn  :  He  uses  large  words,  emphatic  apostrophes, 
which  smack  of  the  stage.  “O  earth,  O  heavens,  O 
virtue!  ”  He  remembers,  it  is  true,  his  profession  as 
tragedian,  but,  when  Æschines  is  summoned,  he  exer¬ 
cises  it  with  the  majestic  tone  of  a  Phadamantlius. 
What  impertinence!  Elsewhere,  Demosthenes  writes 
a  page  of  literary  criticism,  artistic  and  even  theatri¬ 
cal,  on  the  iambi  of  Euripides’  Phœnix ,  and  on  a  statue 
of  Solon.  At  times  the  oration  On  the  Embassy  turns 
to  criticise  poetical  erudition.  Æschines  declaimed 
some  verses  from  Solon,  and  attempted  to  draw  from 
them  some  arguments  against  Demosthenes.  Demos¬ 
thenes  returned  the  blow,  and  cited  Solon  on  the  love 
of  gold  and  of  venality.  To  a  fragment  from  Euripides 
he  replied  with  a  fragment  from  Sophocles.  Against 
every  scholar  he  placed  two.  Æschines  wished  to  de¬ 
stroy,  in  advance,  the  effect  of  a  citation  from  Homer, 
to  which  the  general,  the  defender  of  Timarchus,  ought 
to  have  recourse  : 

“  You  ought  to  speak  of  Achilles,  Patroclus  and  Homer, 
as  if  our  judges  were  ignorant.  You  are  very  important. 
You  affect  a  vain  erudition  which  tends  to  humiliate  the  peo¬ 
ple.  Let  us  show  that  we,  also,  are  not  ignorant  of  litera¬ 
ture  and  learning.  Since  they  quote  the  wise,  and  have 
recourse  to  sentences  expressed  in  their  verses,  cast  your  eyes 

*  Demosthenes  (Pro  Corona )  has  substituted  stone  and  brick  for 
steel  and  brass.  He  corrects  the  terms,  but  he  emphasizes  the 
thought. 


284 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


with  me,  Athenians,  on  the  philosophical  poets  who,  as  all 
confess,  unite  genius  and  virtue.  See  how  they  distinguish  a 
modest  and  well  selected  affection  from  the  intemperance  of 
an  injurious  libertinism.”* 

And  AEschines  had  the  clerk  read  (this  time  sure  to 
be  heard),  then  he  himself  commented  on  the  extracts 
of  the  Iliad  and  of  Euripides,  u  a  very  moral  poet.” 

The  Athenian  orators  used  an  acknowledged  right 
when  they  invoked  the  testimony  of  poets.  The  an¬ 
cient  poets  of  Greece  had  been  both  theologians  and 
moral  teachers.  Solon  united  the  statesman,  the  poet 
and  the  philosopher.  ITomer  and  Hesiod  were  sacred 
books  among  the  Athenians.  AEscliines  appealed  to 
Fame  to  establish  the  unworthiness  of  Timarclius.  How 
was  her  testimony,  which  the  verses  of  Hesiod  had 
consecrated,  to  be  repudiated  %  Demosthenes  referred 
to  Orpheus,  representing  Justice  standing  near  Jupiter’s 
throne  with  eyes  open  to  the  actions  of  mortals. 
Among  the  preambles  in  his  decree  on  the  alliance  with 
Thebes,  he  cited  reminiscences  from  Œdipus  and  the 
Heraclidæ.  Æschines  appealed  to  Theseus  and  his 
sons  to  establish,  before  Philip,  the  fact  that  Amplii- 
polis  was,  from  its  origin,  an  Athenian  land.  Under 
Tiberius,  the  Ephesians  endeavored  to  prove  before  the 
senate  that  Ephesus  and  not  Delos  witnessed  the  birth 
of  Diana  and  Apollo. f  The  legends  of  the  Greeks 
formed  a  part  of  their  archives;  the  orators  deduced 
arguments  from  them  and  quoted  the  poets  with  more 
authority  than  Cicero  in  his  works  of  philosophy.  The 
Latin  writers  especially  drew  ornaments  from  them; 
the  Athenian  orators  found  in  them  official  documents 
intended  to  convince  and  to  delight. 

The  accuser  of  Timarclius  and  of  Demosthenes  was  a 

*  Embassy,  §  141.  Tacitus,  Annales ,  iii,  60. 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


285 


scholar  who  conveniently  transformed  his  address  into 
a  work  of  art  which  was  elegantly  polished.  Cicero, 
the  most  brilliant  and  faithful  imitator  of  the  Greek 
orators,  also  made  use  of  his  art  against  Terres,  a 
famous  collector,  probably  one  of  Lord  Elgin’s  an¬ 
cestors.  While  declaring  that  he  was  not  a  connoisseur 
nor  interested  in  trifles,  the  orator  of  De  Signis  wrote 
an  oration  in  which  certain  parts  resemble  a  mixture  of 
political  pamphlets  and  a  review  on  the  Musée  des  An¬ 
tiques  or  on  Le  Salon.  When  we  hear  such  abuse  lav¬ 
ished  on  an  enemy  {in  Pisonem )  as  monster,  beast, 
fury,  ass,  hog,  eunuch,  etc.,  *  *  *  it  would  seem  that 
Cicero  was  eager  to  tear  him  into  pieces.  Tot  at  all; 
his  hatred  was  more  refined.  UI  have  never  desired 
thy  blood.”  What  then  did  he  desire  ?  His  dishonor. 
“If  you  and  Gabinius  were  crucified,  would  I  derive 
more  pleasure  from  seeing  your  bodies  lacerated  than 
from  seeing  your  reputations  mutilated  ?  ”  There  is 
something  more  dreadful  than  to  be  crucified;  it  is  to 
be  placed  in  the  pillory  of  history  after  one’s  death; 
and,  during  life,  to  be  disgraced  and  humiliated.  Piso 
did  not  escape  this  punishment.  “Piso  dishonored, 
despised,  condemned  to  fears,  to  the  anxieties  of  the 
guilty  and  trembling;  such  is  what  I  long  wished  to 
see,  and  I  have  seen  it.”*  The  torments  of  the  infer¬ 
nal  regions,  furies,  flames,  burning  torches  that  harass 
the  wicked,  are  suited  to  the  theater.  True  punishment 
is  the  folly  of  the  criminals,  the  delirium  of  Orestes 
and  Athanas;  this  is  the  horror  which  they  inspire  in 
others  and  in  themselves.  In  connection  with  this  de¬ 
velopment,  which  recalls  Æschines  and  Lucretius, f  I 
discover  another  on  the  calmness  of  the  sage  in  the 
midst  of  the  most  frightful  tortures.  Inclosed  in  Plial- 

*  Yidere  te  volui,  vidi.  In  Pisonem ,  41.  f  De  jRerum  Ncdura,  iii,  991. 


286  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

aris’  bull,  lie  says  that  u  it  is  pleasant,”  and  that  u  lie  is 
not  moved  by  it,  so  trifling  is  it.”  *  In  reference  to  this 
epicurean  conception,  worthy  of  the  strongest  para¬ 
doxes  of  the  stoics,  the  author  disserts  upon  the  true 
character  of  the  doctrine  of  Epicurus,  upon  the  exact 
meaning  of  the  maxim  for  pleasure;  and,  singular 
enough,  the  philosophical  criticism  of  the  orator  in 
his  oration  In  Pisonem  surpasses  in  justice  and  sin¬ 
cerity  that  of  the  philosopher  of  the  De  Finibus ,  where 
Cicero  refutes  epicureanism  in  a  manner  unworthy  of 
an  advocate.  Elsewhere  there  are  poetical  reminis¬ 
cences,  verses  from  Ennius  or  imprecations  from  Thy- 
estes.  Cicero  forgets  Piso  in  order  to  produce  a  work 
worthy  of  a  scholar  and  philosopher.  He  informs 
us  that  he  owes  his  eloquence  more  to  his  w~alks  in  the 
Academy  than  to  the  laboratories  of  rhetoricians;  the 
invective  against  Piso  has,  in  fact,  philosophical  pre¬ 
tensions,  a  sententious  and  moral  tone.  But  his  phi¬ 
losophy  and  morals,  we  must  confess,  are  not  always 
found  in  good  company.  It  would  have  been  better 
for  the  author  of  this  work  had  he  been  less  of  a  moral¬ 
ist  and  more  of  a  man,  had  he  been  possessed  of  less 
jihilosopliical  or  poetical  erudition  and  more  delicacy. 
Cicero  followed  the  Greek  custom  of  blending  the 
pamphlet  with  literary  preoccupations.  Therefore  a 
sensible  incongruity  of  the  coarse  insults  and  the  cul¬ 
ture  of  the  writer’s  mind.  The  care  that  he  takes  to 
turn  from  his  wrath  in  order  to  improve  his  reasoning 
indicates  to  us  that  he  is  not,  at  the  bottom  of  his  heart, 
as  hateful  as  he  professes  to  be. 

The  artistic  cares  which  are  so  abundant  in  the 
Greek  orators  do  not  harmonize  with  the  cries  of 
death  resounding  in  all  their  invectives.  They  cruelly 

*  In  Pisonem ,  18,  20. 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


287 


demand  their  adversary’s  head.  Do  not  take  them  at 
their  word.  They  practice  diatribes  which  they  in¬ 
herit  from  iambic  poetry.  The  iambic  poet  bites,  the 
pamphleteer  lacerates. 

One  is  not  as  melancholy,  the  other  is  not  as  cruel, 
as  might  be  imagined.  The  last  is  not  at  all  sangui¬ 
nary.  He  is  from  Athens,  the  most  humane  city,  which 
excluded  from  her  frontiers  iron,  stone  and  wood  that 
was  guilty  of  unconscious  homicide,  and  punished  an 
Areopagite  for  killing  a  sparrow  that  took  refuge  in 
his  bosom.*  The  hearers  were  likewise  too  artistic 
to  be  impartial  judges.  The  oration  On  the  Embassy 
did  not  receive  a  decision  or  penalty.  The  two  adver¬ 
saries  were  painfully  wounded.  The  Athenians  con¬ 
sidered  them  acquitted.  The  judges,  delighted  with 
their  invectives  and  the  charming  beauties  of  their 
eloquence,  retired  satisfied,  without  thinking  of  pun¬ 
ishment.  The  issue  of  the  trial  of  the  Grown  was 
very  similar.  Demosthenes  efideavored  to  exaggerate, 
Æscliines  to  weaken,  the  consequences  of  a  condem¬ 
nation  for  Ctesiphon’s  friend.  “Fear  nothing  for  De¬ 
mosthenes.  If  he  is  deprived  of  a  crown,  the  reward 
for  his  heroic  virtues,  this  magnanimous  Ajax  will  not 
die  of  despair.”  We  do  not  know  why  Demosthenes 
should  have  been  repudiated  by  the  Athenians.  When 
FEschines  was  disowned  by  them,  he  did  not  think  of 
hanging  himself.  Defeated  in  an  oratorical  contest  in 
which  his  eloquence  was  at  stake  rather  than  his  char¬ 
acter,  he  modestly  took  his  departure  after  his  over¬ 
throw  and  retired  to  Rhodes,  yielding  to  his  rival. 
At  the  age  of  forty-eight,  says  a  writer  of  the  seven¬ 
teenth  century,  Mme.  de  Montbazon  was  still  so  beau- 

*  The  Areopagus  in  its  turn  killed  a  child  who  had  put  out  the 
e}res  of  a  bird. 


288 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


tiful  that  she  eclipsed  Mme.  de  Poquelaure,  the  most 
beautiful  lady  of  the  court,  and  only  twenty-two  years 
of  age.  One  day  the  two  found  themselves  together 
in  an  assembly.  Mme.  de  Poquelaure  was  obliged  to 
retire.  The  great  ladies  of  the  century  of  Louis  XIY 
submitted  to  the  empire  of  beauty.  The  empire  of 
intellectual  beauty  was  likewise  recognized  and  re¬ 
spected  by  the  adversary  of  Demosthenes.  When 
Milo  was  condemned  and  was  enjoying  his  exile,  eat¬ 
ing  figs  in  Provincia  and  fish  at  Massilia,  he  enter¬ 
tained  cruel  resentments  and  nourished  projects  for 
vengeance.  LEscliines  had  no  such  thoughts.  He 
did  not  corrode  his  heart  in  digesting  a  bloody  affront. 
Undoubtedly  the  high-minded  orator  was  stung  by  his 
defeat;  but  the  object  of  his  culture,  his  eloquence, 
did  not  desert  him.  He  became  a  voluntary  exile, 
and  without  paying  the  thousand  drachmas  to  which 
the  law  condemned  him,  he  continued  to  live  in  the 
enjoyment  of  his  art.  *  He  opened,  we  are  told,  a 
school,  where  he,  more  agreeably,  perhaps,  than  ever, 
tasted  the  delicacies  of  beautiful  language  by  teaching 
it.  He  delighted  his  pupils  and  himself  by  reading 
his  harangues,  even  the  one  which  succumbed  under 
Demosthenes’  nobler  effort.  After  hearing  kEschines’ 
accusation  the  audience  cried  out:  “All  !  how  could 
you  fail  to  triumph  with  such  a  speech?”  “  Listen,” 
responded  the  teacher,  and  he  read  to  them  Demos¬ 
thenes’  reply.  The  admiration  of  his  hearers  was  un¬ 
bounded.  uAh  !  What  if  you  had  heard  the  lion 
himself?  ”  * 

Instead  of  blushing  at  Demosthenes’  overwhelming 
refutation,  he  recited  it  publicly,  and  even  praised  it 

*  rt  ôè ,  et  aoroü  rod  Orjpiou  àxTjxôsire.  Cicero  (De  Oratore ,  iiir 
56)  weakens  the  text  in  translating.  Si  audissetis  ipsum. 


ORATORICAL  CONTESTS. 


289 


with  a  light  heart.  He  himself,  an  artist  of  the  high¬ 
est  order,  found  in  Demosthenes’  mhsteiqoiece  the  real¬ 
ization  of  a  perfect  art.  He  appreciated  it  as  if  he 
were  a  disinterested  reader.  •Clesides  was  renowned 
for  an  unfavorable  picture  which  he  painted  of  Queen 
Stratonice.  Because  that  princess  did  not  tender  him 
an  honorable  reception  he  painted  her  rolling  ( volutan - 
terri)  with  a  fisherman,  with  whom  she  was  said  to  be 
too  intimate.  He  exposed  his  picture  in  the  harbor  of 
Ephesus,  and  then  fled  with  full  sail.  The  queen  for¬ 
bade  the  picture  to  be  removed  “because  of  the  ex¬ 
treme  resemblances  of  the  portraits.”*  The  indif¬ 
ference  of  the  artistic  queen  reminds  us  of  HCschines 
rolled  in  the  dust  by  Demosthenes  and  applauding 
him.  This  gallant  manner  of  extolling  a  work  which 
branded  him  inspired  Laharpe  with  profound  astonish¬ 
ment. 

“  I  do  not  understand,  I  confess,  how  he  had  the  courage 
to  read  Demosthenes1  harangue  before  his  pupils.  One  can 
without  any  crime  be  less  eloquent  than  another;  but  how 
can  he  confess  without  blushing  that  he  has  been  so  evidently 
convicted  as  a  calumniator  and  a  bad  citizen?1 

One  of  the  advantages  of  historical  criticism  is  to 
prevent  or  to  diminish  this  kind  of  surprise.  We 
are  not  astonished,  however,  when  we  consider  in  the 
works  of  the  two  rivals  their  political  and  private  en¬ 
mity,  the  influence  of  artistic  preoccupations,  and  the 
character  of  an  oratorical  contest. 

*  Pliny  the  Elder ,  xxxv,  ch.  40,  §  15. 


13 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 

“  (Pixrei  7zâ(nv  à'sOpcônoiç  VTzdpyet  rœv  Xoidopimv  y. at  rib's  y.aryj- 
yopiœv  àxoùetv  rjôéojç.  *  *  *  Aeôœ/.are ,  è’Oet  rt'A  <paùX(p}  -oXlrps 
èÇouatav  ras  fioulop.ivcp  ffuxotpayreîV)  rrjç  èîc't  ra'tq  Aotôoptaiq 
ijdovyç .  xat  ydptroç  ro  rijÇ  tz dÀetoç  <rup.<pépov  œsrr/.araXlarôp.vsoi: 
It  is  natural  for  all  men  to  willingly  listen  to  invectives  and  accusa¬ 
tions.  *  *  *  By  a  pernicious  custom  you  grant  all  license  to  calum¬ 
niators,  and  you  prefer  to  hear  personal  injuries  discussed,  rather 
than  the  interests  of  the  state.”  ( Oration  On  the  Crown.) 

THE  ancients  were  unacquainted  with  the  free¬ 
dom  of  the  press,  but  they  enjoyed  the  freedom 
of  insults.  As  for  the  orators,  their  saturnalia  and 
freedom  of  speech  lasted  during  the  whole  year.  The 
freedom  of  the  Greek  tribune  equaled  that  of  the 
comic  theater;  it  even  continued  a  longer  time.  The 
legislator  required  comedy  to  moderate  its  boldness 
{Ad  Plsones ,  281);  that  of  eloquence  was  never 
checked.  The  dissoluteness  of  ancient  comedy  well 
deserved  to  he  suppressed  by  law.  Never  did  the 
Iambics  of  Archilochus  contain  more  malice  and  anger 
than  Aristophanes’  pamphlets  against  Hyperbolus  and 
Cleon;  they  are  outrages,  floods  of  insults,  torrents 
of  wrath.  The  Knights  frequently  present  a  spec¬ 
tacle,  perhaps  less  pleasing  to  us  than  to  the  Athe¬ 
nian  people,  of  repeated  affronts,  which  remind  us  of 
the  licentiousness  of  the  festivals  of  Priapus  and 
Bacchus.  TheSpis’  tumbrel  covers  the  public  and 
private  life  of  the  character  represented  with  filthy 
rubbish,  which  bears  no  resemblance  to  Atticism. 

290 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


291 


Even  at  the  Pnyx  and  before  the  tribunal  the  orators 

V 

assailed  one  another  with  calumny  and  outrage,  with¬ 
out  limit  or  measure.  On  both  sides  there  was  the 
same  animosity,  the  same  violence.  It  was  like  the 
whip-lash  constantly  whipping  the  top;  like  boiling 
water  when  it  causes  the  kettle,  unable  to  contain  it, 
to  grumble. 

“  Chorus:  Our  man  [Cleon]  is  boiling.  Enough,  enough!  he 
overflows;  withdraw  some  of  the  wood  and  skim  of  his  threats.” 

Instead  of  calming  the  furious  dispute,  the  chorus 
excites  it;  it  enrages  Cleon  and  Agoracritus  against 
each  other  like  two  cocks. 

“  Chorus:  Bite,  lacerate  your  enemy,  pick  off  his  crest,  do 
not  return  until  you  have  devoured  him.  *  *  *  Strike,  strike 
the  villain  who  has  thrown  confusion  among  the  knights, — 
strike  the  public  thief,  the  gulf  of  plunder,  the  devouring 
charybdis,  the  rascal,  the  rascal!  I  cannot  repeat  this  name 
enough,  for  he  is  a  rascal  a  thousand  times  a  day.  Come, 
strike,  push,  overthrow,  crush,  hate  him  as  we  hate  him; 
stun  him  with  your  blows  and  cries.  *  *  *  Strike  him  with 
all  your  might,  punish  him  with  the  lash,  chastise  him  in 
every  manner,  —  Oh,  vigorous  contest  !  Oh,  intrepid  heart,  you 
are  the  deliverer  of  the  city  and  of  us  all!  Have  you  pun¬ 
ished  him  sufficiently  in  this  crushing  assault?  How  can  we 
express  our  joy  and  praise  you  worthily?” 

Aristophanes  is  here  a  very  cruel  commentator  on 
Athenian  eloquence.  Agoracritus  and  Cleon  some¬ 
times  recall  to  our  mind  Demosthenes  and  Æscliines, 
which  must  be  regretted  for  the  sake  of  the  Greek 
tribune.  This  assimilation  is  justified  by  the  study  of 
their  speeches,  considered  as  pamphlets.  Let  us  first 
cite  the  causes  which  have  rendered  their  resemblance 
possible. 

The  first  is  the  inferiority  of  moral  delicacy  among 


292 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


the  ancients.  The  orators  of  Athens  and  Rome  were 
little  inspired  with  Plato’s  love  for  justice.  u  Let  the 
people  scorn  you,  if  they  think  best,  and,  by  Jupiter, 
even  suffer  them  to  strike  you  in  that  ignominious 
manner  which  you  have  mentioned  [on  the  cheek]; 
for  such  an  injury  is  nothing,  if  you  are  really  an 
honorable  man  and  practice  virtue.”  ( Gorgias .)  The 
ancients  generally  preferred  revenge  to  the  forgiveness 
of  injuries,  a  virtue  recommended  even  by  heathens,* 
and  at  all  times  difficult.  UI  know  how  to  love  a 
friend,  but  also  to  return  hatred  for  hatred.  I  will 
come  upon  my  enemy  unexpectedly  by  following  the 
windings  of  secret  bypaths.”  Aristotle,  in  the  anal¬ 
ysis  of  those  passions  which  nourish  eloquence,  does 
not  forget  wrath,  and  the  pleasure  experienced  in 
yielding  to  it.  Wrath,  said  he,  implies  a  resolution  to 
revenge,  a  hope  to  succeed  in  it,  and  the  joy  of  antici¬ 
pating  the  revenge;  u  and  then  we  enjoy  in  our  imagi¬ 
nation  a  delightful  satisfaction  similar  to  that  of  a 
dream.  ”f  Cicero  declared  that  he  had  often  been 
angry  with  Piso.  The  immortal  gods  crowned  his 
desires.  Piso’s  humiliation  delighted  him.  u  What 
satisfaction,  what  pleasure,  what  joy  it  brought  to 
me!  ”  He  did  much  good  for  his  friends  g  much  evil 
to  his  enemies.  Such  was  the  most  honorable  epitaph 
of  great  personages,  such  was  the  envied  eulogy  of 
cities.  Pericles  decreed  it  in  favor  of  the  ancestors  of 
those  warriors  whose  funeral  oration  he  pronounced. 

In  the  Roman  republic,  where  for  many  years  aris¬ 
tocracy  was  predominant,  satirical  freedom  was  moder¬ 
ated  by  the  fear  of  perishing  under  blows  of  the  staff.  £ 

*  De  Officiis,  i,  11,  25.  f  Rhetoric,  i,  11,  12. 

t  Formidine  fustis  (Horace,  Epistles ,  ii,  2.)  The  law  of  the  Twelve 
Tables  was  formal  in  this  respect  :  “  Si  qui  pipulo  oçcentasit  carmenve. 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


293 


0 

Dabunt  Metelli  malum  Nævio  Poetæ. 

The  Metelli  will  ajpply  the  rod  to  Mævius ,  the  poet. 
This  same  rod  at  Paris,  in  later  days,  while  waiting  in 
the  shade  of  the  Bastile,  fell  upon  the  shoulders  of 
another  poet,  Arouet,  from  the  hands  not  of  Metellus, 
chevalier  de  Bohan,  but  from  the  hands  of  his  ser¬ 
vants.  This  was  an  indication  of  fear  to  apply  the  rod 
in  person.  Homer’s  heroes  did  not  hesitate  to  ex¬ 
change  gross  insults.  When  Achilles  was  deprived 
of  his  captive  he  treated  Agamemnon  as  an  impudent 
iog.  He  was  about  to  draw  ‘  ‘  his  great  sword  ”  from 
its  scabbard;  blue-eyed  Minerva  checked  him.  Do 
not  offer  violence,  but  insult  him  with  abusive  lan¬ 
guage  to  your  heart’s  content.  Achilles,  in  accordance 
with  the  injunction  of  the  wise  goddess,  reprimanded 
him  unsparingly.  u  Drunkard,  who  hast  the  effrontery 
of  a  dog  and  the  heart  of  a  hind,  base  king  and  de- 
vourer  of  thy  people!”*  These  familiarities  were 
permitted  among  kings.  But  when  a  villain,  The^ 
sites,  dared  to  tell  these  same  plain  truths,  vigorous 
blows  of  the  scepter  (the  heroic  rod)  applied  upon  his 
shoulders  until  his  blood  flowed  freely,  made  the  inso¬ 
lent  babbler  respectful  to  his  superiors.  Scepter  and 
rod  were  unknown  to  the  democracy  of  Athens.  Di¬ 
ogenes,  with  all  grace,  asked  Alexander  to  stand  out 
of  his  light.  Perhaps  he  would  have  been  less  re¬ 
served  if  he  had  not  been  a  philosopher. 

coudidit  quod  infame  faxit  flagitiumque  alteri,  fuste  ferito.”  “  That 
law  which  best  detected  the  design  of  the  Decemvirs  was  the  capital 
punishment  pronounced  against  the  authors  of  libels  and  poets.  This 
was  but  the  spirit  of  the  republic,  in  which  the  people  loved  to  see 
the  great  humiliated.  But  people  who  wished  to  destroy  liberty 
feared  writings  which  could  recall  the  spirit  of  liberty.”  ( Esprit  des 
Lois,  vi,  15.) 

*  ôy/iufiopoq.  (Iliad,  i,  231  ;  ii,  212.) 


294 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


The  orators  at  Athens  were  less  philosophers  than 
cynics  in  their  invectives;  the  right  of  defamation  was 
unlimited.  A  law  of  Solon  protected  the  dead  from 
scandal,  but  not  the  living.  To  hold  one’s  tongue 
when  insult  was  offered  would  have  been  derogatory 
to  one  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  democratic  constitu¬ 
tion.  The  author  of  the  Funeral  Eulogy ,  which  was 
attributed  to  Demosthenes,  praises,  in  democratic 
states,  the  advantage  of  favoring  what  we  call  parlia¬ 
mentary  inquiries.  Oligarchies,  and  especially  despot¬ 
isms,  do  not  tolerate  them,  or  at  least  render  them  use¬ 
less.  The  guilty  settle  their  difficulties  with  their 
rulers  and  their  crimes  remain  unknown  to  the  people, 
or  unpunished. 

“  But  in  a  democracy,  one  of  the  greatest  privileges  which 
the  wise  ought  to  support  is  the  liberty  of  publishing  the 
truth  with  frankness  and  without  opposition.  The  author  of 
a  shameful  deed  cannot  seduce  an  entire  people;  they  are 
jpimiliated  by  him  who  reveals  the  ignominious  truth, — 
humiliated  by  the  pleasure  which  witnesses  experience  in 
hearing  the  accuser.” 

This  privilege  of  popular  government  is  praised  in 
the  oration  Against  Androtion. 

“  Solon  knew, —  yes,  he  knew  well, —  that  the  government 
most  hostile  to  dangerous  citizens  was  that  in  which  one  man 
was  permitted  to  reproach  another  for  his  infamous  acts. 
What  government  was  that?  The  democratic,  *  *  *  for  in 
an  oligarchy  it  was  forbidden  to  speak  disparagingly  of  the 
chiefs,  even  if  their  lives  surpassed  Androtion’s  in  turpitude.” 

If  the  feudal  Greek  of  Homer’s  time  had,  in  this 
respect,  experienced  the  democratic  liberty  of  Athens, 
we  would  have  a  different  character  in  Agamemnon. 
With  pride  and  boasting,  the  king  of  kings  carried  off 
Briseis.  Among  the  high  and  low  no  one  was  found 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


295 


who  objected  to  it.  An  Acliæan  publicly  censured 
sucli  violence, —  and  who  was  the  defender  of  right 
against  force  ?  Thersites.  Before  the  full  assembly  be 
attacked  Agamemnon,  whereupon  Ulysses  termed  him 
an  insolent  babbler,  and  made  him  weep  under  bis 
blows.  The  Greeks  applauded  Ulysses’  exploit,  which 
in  their  eyes  was  a  manly  act;  and  at  the  sight  of  Ther¬ 
sites’  wounds  and  tears  ‘‘they  were  delighted  and 
laughed  heartily.”  The  army  did  not  foresee  the  evils 
which  the  wrath  of  Thetis’  son  was  about  to  bring 
upon  them,  anft  which  the  triumph  of  the  accuser  Ther¬ 
sites  would  have  spared  them. 

Athens  would  have  thanked  Agamemnon’s  adversary 
for  an  invective  which  was  useful  to  the  commonwealth. 
Her  orators,  however,  were  wrong  to  insult  in  order  to 
please,  when  it  would  have  sufficed  for  the  defense  of 
the  city  to  use  reason.  But  we  must  remember  that 
the  law  of  progress  is  imposed  and  social  morals  are 
perfected  with  time.  Many  errors  of  democratic  liberty 
which  were  tolerated  at  Borne  and  Athens  are  con¬ 
demned  by  law  and  public  conscience  in  modern  re-  ' 
publics,  less  democratic  than  the  ancient-,  but  more 
civil. 

Nausicaa  accused  the  Phæcians  of  loving  “bitter  scan¬ 
dal  ”  and  “insolent  insinuations.”  *  The  Athenian,  who 
was  from  his  birth  malicious  and  backbiting,  deserved 
the  same  reproach.  The  sight  of  a  contest  of  invective 
pleased  him  as  much  as  a  quail -fight;  especially  if 
scandal  seasoned  it.  Young  and  old  were  present  at 
Timarchus’  trial,  just  as  a  certain  class  of  our  people 

*  Odyssey,  vi,  273.  Nicknames  were  fashionable  at  Athens.  De¬ 
mosthenes  received  those  of  Argos  and  Batlalus;  Æschines’  mother, 
that  of  Empussa ;  Aristoplion,  that  of  Arclettus;  Ilegesippus,  that  of 
Crobylus. 


296 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


to-clay  are  anxious  to  hear  the  private  afïairs  of  litigants 
with  closed  doors.  The  Athenian  people  preferred  in¬ 
vective,  even  injurious,  to  a  friend.  Demosthenes  was 
very  much  devoted  to  the  people,  and  yet  he  permitted 
JEschines  to  insult  them;  while  Philip,  as  our  orator 
informs  us,  did  not  permit  Demosthenes  to  insult  Æs- 
cliines  in  his  presence.  The  tragic  poets  did  not  forget 
to  satisfy  this  taste  of  the  Athenian  people.  Sophocles’ 
Ajax  closes  with  a  long  dispute  (  'éptdôq  nç  often 

insulting.  In  it  Teucer  addresses  Menqiaus  with  “  in¬ 
sane  ”  and  “robber  of  votes ”  (y.Xe-zr^  y o-(nûç).  Aga¬ 
memnon  coming  on,  the  scene  is  prolonged  and  embit¬ 
tered.  Teucer,  stung  by  the  appellation  of  “big  ox,” 
“slave,”  and  “  barbarian,”  humbles  Agamemnon  by 
reminding  him  of  his  family  history.  Thy  father  Atreus 
served  his  brother  Thyestes  the  abominable  feast  in 
which  he  ate  his  own  children;  thy  mother,  a  Cretan, 
was  caught  in  the  act  of  adultery,  and  thrown  into  the 
sea  like  food  to  dumb  fish,  etc.  *  *  *  Before  Ulysses, 
who  finally  has  come  to  settle  the  quarrel,  Agamemnon 
excuses  himself  for  having  at  first  refused  burial  to 
Ajax.  “It  is  not  easy  for  a  king  to  be  just.”  He 
does  not  think  of  excusing  his  violent  language.  The 
spectators,  far  from  being  surprised,  were  pleased  with 
the  whole. 

To  these  general  causes  we  will  add  some  others 
that  were  peculiar  to  the  modes  of  eloquence  and 
judicial  organization  at  Athens.  In  transforming  their 
harangues  into  pamphlets,  the  Athenian  orators  made 
diversions  which  were  useful  to  their  cause.  They 
turned  the  attention  of  the  judge  from  the  principal 
point,  sometimes  difficult  to  establish,*  and  at  the 

*  The  Romans  also  used  this  same  method  of  digression 
Ttapéxfiafftç:  Quintilian,  iv,  3).  Indignation,  pity,  hateful  envy, 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


297 


same  time  they  procured  his  complaisance  by  flat¬ 
tering  one  of  his  most  decided  inclinations.  Aris¬ 
tophanes,  in  the  hope  of  branding  a  detested  enemy, 
cast  handfuls  of  coarse  salt  on  a  mixed  audience  in 
which  all  conditions,  all  ranks  were  found  in  one 
theater.*  His  muse,  sublime  and  ridiculous,  some¬ 
times  shakes,  with  Iacclios,  the  sacred  torch  of  the 
initiated;  sometimes,  with  Xanthias  (Frogs),  she  vol¬ 
untarily  soils  her  wings  in  the  mud  of  cross-roads. 
Likewise,  the  Athenian  orator,  speaking  before  an 
assembly,  not  selected  but  popular,  sometimes  forgot 
the  dignity  of  an  art  that  was  formerly  imprinted 
with  the  gravity  of  moral  philosophy;  he  remembered 
the  instincts  of  a  people  inclined  to  raillery,  jealous, 
fond  of  outrage,  and  disposed  to  avenge  themselves 
by  such  means  on  superior  talents  and  prominent 
men.  In  connection  with  bursts  of  the  grandest  elo¬ 
quence,  he  did  not  fear  to  descend  to  invectives  that 
were  pleasing  to  his  hearers  or  even  impudent. 

At  Athens  the  public  minister’s  right  of  initiative 
was  extended  to  the  entire  public:  any  citizen  could 
enter  a  criminal  charge  against  another.  This  dis¬ 
position  of  the  law,  extolled  as  an  excellent  preroga¬ 
tive  of  democratic  government,  favored  accusation 
and  encouraged  enmity.  Sycophants,  covetous  and 
hateful  grumblers,  hoped  to  obtain  a  part  of  the 
criminal’s  fortune  if  he  was  condemned.  In  all  cases 
they  satisfied  their  hatred.  Besides,  the  decision  of 
the  suit  was  not  intrusted  to  a  few  serious  judges 
who  were  imbued  with  the  sanctity  of  their  functions, 

%  *  '  i  'i 

invective  (conviction),  are  so  many  means  “of  resting  the  judge”  and 
of  unbending  him.  Sometimes  invective  is  the  very  foundation  of 
the  oration  ;  for  example,  the  Oratio  in  Pisonem. 

*  Rusticus  urbano  confusus,  turpis  honesto.  (Ad  Pisones ,  213.) 


298 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


nor  to  a  limited  and  cliosen  jury;  but  to  a  multitude 
(sometimes  fifteen  hundred  persons)  ignorant  of  the 
laws  and  subject  to  all  popular  passions;  a  partial 
and  blind  mob  who  sat  day  after  day  for  tlieir  three 
oboles,  and  consoled  themselves  for  the  miseries  of 
their  humble  condition  by  striking  those  of  whom 
they  were  jealous,  or  imagined  they  had  a  right  to 
hate.  This  class  of  judges,  irritable  and  malicious,* 
was  armed  with  smarting  darts,  always  ready  to 
pierce.  And  how  the  accused  caressed  this  dreaded 
master!  The  greatest  prostrated  themselves  before 
him,  “brushed  the  flies  from  him,  took  the  sponge 
from  the  pot  and  blacked  his  boots  ”  (Wa  ps).  The 
most  powerful  purchased  his  clemency,  and  woe  be 
to  him  who  had  formerly  wounded  him! 

Imagine  a  tax-collector  falling  into  this  wasp’s  nest  ! 
What  revenge  such  a  mob  would  take  on  him  !  This 
was  the  lot  dreaded  by  poor  Euxitlieus.  And  yet 
he  was  a  very  modest  person.  His  mother,  a  little 
haberdasher,  had  to  serve  as  nurse,  and  he  himself  sold 
ribbons  at  the  market.  But  he  had  been  demarclius, 
and  an  honest  demarclius;  he  exacted  payments  from 
the  tenants  of  sacred  groves;  he  forced  the  plunderers 
of  the  public  treasure  to  restitution.  When  accused 
he  had  everything  to  fear.  Androtion’s  case  was  still 
worse, —  he  had  been  a  careful  tax-collector,  and  his 
accuser  was  Demosthenes.*  Androtion,  taking  cowardly 
advantage  of  their  precarious  position,  molested  two 

*  To  endeavor  to  moderate  them  was  like  trying  to  “  cook  a  stone.” 
(Aristophanes,  Wasps,  passim.)  The  Athenian  people  were  dissatis¬ 
fied  if  a  promised  accusation  was  abandoned;  it  was  taking  away 
their  prey.  They  felt  ungrateful  to  Timotheus  and  Demosthenes  for 
failing  to  keep  their  promise  to  accuse  Iphicrates  and  Midias.  (Cf. 
Antiphon,  Oratores  Atlici,  §§  G9,  70.)  A  judicial  error  delivered  the 
Hellenotamœ  to  punishment. 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


299 


courtesans,  Sinope  and  Plianostrate.  He  seized  tlieir 
furniture.  Was  his  aim  to  take  vengeance  upon  them 
for  the  outrages  of  the  libertines,  who,  instead  of  pay¬ 
ing  him  for  his  kindness,  beat  him  ?  Androtion,  a 
pitiless  persecutor,  forced  the  poor  to  hide  themselves 
under  their  beds,  or  seek  shelter  in  their  neighbor’s 
house.  A  more  oj3pressive  tyrant  than  ever  were  the 
Thirty.  He  broke  open  the  houses  of  citizens  or  changed 
them  into  prisons  !  Even  under  the  eyes  of  the  sover¬ 
eign  people  we  see  this  unworthy  magistrate  eager  to 
persecute  the  innocent,  when  his  infamous  acts  declare 
him  unfit  for  public  office;  for  he  is  known  “to  be 
guilty  of  the  most  revolting  excesses.  He  is  impudent, 
audacious,  haughty,  dishonest,  fitted  for  anything  ex¬ 
cept  to  exercise  an  official  function  in  the  democracy.”  * 
W  e  will  pass  these  crimes,  and  even  worse  than  these. 
Judge  if,  with  an  indigent  f  and  revengeful  monarch  of 
the  suburbs,  such  an  invective  was  well  received  and 
the  defamation  efficacious. 

The  Athenian  law  required  every  citizen  to  defend 
himself  in  person  before  the  court.  Often  the  com¬ 
plainant,  unskilled  in  eloquence,  asked  his  barrister  for 
a  written  speech;  but  both  were  very  careful  to  dissim¬ 
ulate  this  strange  recourse.  The  author  of  the  speech 
stamped  it  with  his  client’s  spirit  and  passion;  the  cli¬ 
ent  pronounced  it  with  the  sincere  emphasis  of  his  own 
resentment,  and  demanded  vengeance  with  the  earnest¬ 
ness  of  an  outraged  man.  In  modern  times,  neither 
the  plaintiff  nor  the  defendant  address  the  audience. 

*  Against  Androtion,  §  47. 

f  He  relied  upon  the  triobole  to  purchase  his  dinner.  ( Wasps, 
verse  300.)  The  confiscations  from  which  he  hoped  to  receive  his 
part  increased  his  covetousness.  (Lysias,  Against  Epicrates ,  Oratores 
Attici,  §  1). 


300 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GKEECE. 


Even  if  he  should  desire  it,  he  has  not  the  leisure  to 
inveigh  against  the  magistrate,  the  author  of  the  ad- 
di  •ess.  The  Greek  pleader  and  defendant  endeavored 
to  justify  themselves  by  attacking  the  adverse  party  or 
the  accuser.  If  the  logograplier  substituted  himself 
in  place  of  the  client,  appeared  at  the  bar  and  attacked 
the  adversary  directly,  he  was  bound  to  prove  by  the 
animosity  of  his  attack  that  he  prosecuted  him  as  a 
private  enemy.  The  more  violent  his  oration,  the  less 
would  be  the  belief  that  he  had  undertaken  the  defense 
of  another  for  money.  Modern  advocates  declare  their 
disinterested  impartiality;  the  logograplier,  his  personal 
enmity  or  sometimes  contrary  feelings.  Hyperides 
thought  it  advantageous  to  declare  before  the  Areopa¬ 
gus  that  he  was  the  lover  of  Pliryne,  his  client.  For 
a  stronger  reason  the  plaintiff  did  not  hesitate  to  ex¬ 
press  his  own  affections. 

The  logograplier  reviewed  his  adversary’s  entire  life 
and  abused  him  without  mercy.  Such  outrages  are 
the  exception  with  our  advocates.  The  Greeks  in¬ 
sulted  merely  to  insult.  They  wished  to  dishonor 
their  enemy,  to  brand  him  with  public  contempt  in 
order  to  more  certainly  produce  the  legal  dishonor 
( àrt/j.îa )  pronounced  by  the  judge,  and  that  in  a  spirit 
of  revenge  and  enmity  which  was  either  real  or  feigned, 
but  in  any  case  earnestly  professed.  The  logograplier 
had  little  shame,  as  his  oration  was  generally  deliv¬ 
ered  by  another.  Perhaps  he  would  have  recoiled  be¬ 
fore  certain  articulated  calumnies  if  their  author  was 
known.  Anonymous  insults  ignore  all  modesty. 

The  Athenian  tribunals  took  no  pride  in  establish¬ 
ing  their  sentences  on  right.  Yery  often  they  were 
ignorant  of  the  law,  and  if  TEschines  is  to  be  believed, 
who  in  his  experience  as  clerk  often  witnessed  the  in- 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


301 


different  inattention  of  the  judges,  they  took  but  little 
care  to  learn  it.  The  orators  on  their  side  appealed  as 
much  to  passion  as  to  law.*  In  order  to  be  success¬ 
ful  they  inspired  the  judges  with  favorable  or  hostile 
prejudices.  To  this  end  the  advocate  did  not  give 
way  sometimes  before  real  infamies;  for  example,  that 
of  a  son  publicly  outraging  his  mother’s  honor  in  the 
hope  of  destroying  the  testimony  of  a  brother  whom 
he  thought  necessary  to  prove  a  bastard,  f  Such 
suitors  did  not  scruple  to  use  invective,  therefore  they 
employed  it  unsparingly.  For  want  of  argument  they 
used  insult,  and  often  succeeded  by  this  means.  Hy- 
perides,  Dinarchus  and  Stratocles,  Demosthenes’  ac¬ 
cusers  in  the  case  of  Harpalus,  prosecuted  “the  pa¬ 
tient”  on  charges  and  outrages  of  every  character; 
but  precise  facts  and  conclusive  proofs  were  ignored. 
They  dispensed  with  all  that  should  carry  conviction. 
It  seemed  that  the  accused  was  convicted  before  trial. 
What  was  most  necessary  to  carry  the  decision  of  a 
popular  tribunal  ?  Passionate  reasoning,  whose  pathos 
concealed  the  weakness  or  the  absence  of  proofs.  Rig¬ 
orous  demonstrations  were  not  more  necessary  to  the 
Athenian  orators  than  to  Swift,  when  he  wished  to 
arouse  the  Irish  against  Mr.  Wood  and  his  money 
scheme  in  a  pamphlet  which  w^as  based,  not  upon  rea¬ 
son,  but  upon  passion  and  skill,  and  which  triumphed 
over  virtue  and  right.  ^ 

The  Athenian  logographers  made  a  careful  distinc¬ 
tion  between  conviction  {eXsyyoq)  and  invective  (Xotdopia). 
This  was  only  in  theory.  In  practice  they  confounded 

*  '0 pyi^ea0e\  {Against  Leptines,  %  119.)  Icpôdpa  xpij  opyiÇeffdai. 
{Against  Eratosthenes ,  passim.) 

f  Against  Stephanus ,  i,  §  83. 

%  Taine,  English  Literature. 


302 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GEEECE. 


them.  Sometimes  invective  seemed  to  be  forced  upon 
the  orator  when  he  had  to  establish  the  unworthiness 
of  a  proposer  of  a  bill  or  law.  A  law  of  Solon  forbade 
citizens  of  infamous  character  and  spendthrifts  the  use 
of  the  tribune.  Androtion  proposed  an  illegal  decree. 
Diodorus  attacked  him.  In  his  eyes  Androtion  was 
twice  culpable:  first,  for  having  made  a  motion  con¬ 
trary  to  the  laws;  second,  for  having  made  it  at  a 
time  when  the  unworthiness  of  his  life  legally  forbade 
him  to  submit  to  the  people  even  a  regular  proposi¬ 
tion.  Androtion  reproached  his  accuser  for  deceiving 
the  tribunal  (who  was  engaged  in  another  suit  than 
that  of  Diodorus)  with  imputations  destitute  of  all 
proof.  Demosthenes,  the  author  of  Diodorus’  speech, 
replied  that  he  did  not  depart  from  the  question,  and 
that  his  so-called  insults  were  proofs.  A  modern  tri¬ 
bunal  would  see  a  manoeuvre  foreign  to  the  case  in 
the  defamation  of  the  accused.  In  certain  cases  at 
Athens  abuse  was  argument.  The  pamphlet  was  a 
demonstration  which  disarmed  the  adversary  by  de¬ 
grading  him  when  his  character  prevented  him  from 
being  right.  The  law  on  unworthiness  was  therefore 
very  favorable  to  invective.  It  was  always  easy  in  a 
city  of  lax  morals  to  attack  the  private  life  of  a  po¬ 
litical  adversary.  It  is  a  common  self-love  to  declare 
worthless  any  man  whose  acts  wound  our  feelings  or 
interests. 

Modern  men  consider  the  validity  of  a  motion,  not 
the  character  of  the  proposer.  They  consider  rather 
what  it  is  than  whence  it  comes.  The  Greeks  some¬ 
times  refused  to  distinguish  between  the  political  per¬ 
sonage  and  the  private  man,  as  if  a  citizen  of  question¬ 
able  character  could  not  offer  useful  advice.  Socrates 
declared  that  a  man  unable  to  govern  his  house  well 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


303 


was  unable  to  govern  the  state  well  (. Memorabilia , 
iii,  4).  “The  affairs  of  a  private  individual  are  not  as 
numerous  as  public  affairs;  herein  lies  all  the  differ¬ 
ence.”  This  Socratic  prejudice  seems  to  be  an  echo  of 
Solon’s  law,  which  Æschines  comments  upon  in  these 
terms  against  Timarclius  : 

“  In  the  legislator's  opinion,  he  who  has  badly  adminis¬ 
tered  his  domestic  affairs  will  not  manage  public  charges 
better.  It  is  impossible  for  the  same  man  to  be  a  vicious 
citizen  and  a  good  magistrate,  and  it  is  not  proper  to  permit 
an  orator  who  is  more  careful  to  arrange  the  order  of  his 
orations  than  the  course  of  his  life,  to  speak  from  the  trib- 
une.  * 

Therefore,  to  attack  one’s  private  life  is  not  only  a 
right,  but  a  duty.  It  is  a  disagreeable  proof  salutary 
to  the  city.  From  this  it  happens  that  “personal 
enmities  are  turned  to  the  welfare  of  the  government,” 
according  to  the  Athenian  proverb.  Unfortunately 
the  orators,  by  abusing  the  law  of  unworthiness,  weak¬ 
ened  its  beneficial  qualities.  Too  often  pamphlet  elo¬ 
quence  and  private  resentments  profited  more  by  it 
than  the  commonwealth. t 

*  Against  Timarclius ,  §  30. 

f  Invective  sometimes  formed  a  part  of  the  oration.  Sometimes  it 
pervaded  the  entire  speech.  Demosthenes’  speech  Against  Timocrates , 
and  Æschines’  harangue  Against  Ctesiylion ,  are  composed  of  a  judi¬ 
cial  discussion  and  a  pamphlet.  In  Demosthenes’  harangue  On  the 
Embassy  hatred  occupies  as  much  space  as  demonstration  ;  but  the 
oration  Against  Timarclius  is  from  beginning  to  end  an  invective. 
Sometimes  invective,  in  the  same  cause  between  two  orators,  seems 
to  have  been  reserved  to  one  of  them.  Thus  Demosthenes’  oration 
Against  Androtion  is  a  deuterology  in  which  invective  predominates. 
This  is  equally  true  of  the  oration  Against  Aristogiton.  Lycurgus, 
before  the  author  of  this  second  pleading,  has  especially  treated  the 
question  of  right. 


304 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


II.  In  purely  civil  cases  invective  always  preserved 
something  of  the  moderation  of  the  Attic  style.  De¬ 
mosthenes,  in  his  oration  Against  Phormio ,  paints 
Apollodorus  in  all  hut  flattering  colors.  But  his  re¬ 
proaches  are  mild  compared  with  the  outrages  that  are 
lavished  in  public  and  criminal  cases.  Private  and 
public  life  were  equally  a  prey  to  the  accuser.  Ho 
wall,  no  respect  for  decency,  protected  them.  Abuse 
from  the  rostrum  seemed  to  be  one  of  the  forms  of 
political  life,  as  it  was  one  of  the  forms  of  eloquence. 
The  violent  and  wise  employed  it  equally.*  Plutarch 
declares  that  these  excesses  are  unworthy  of  a  states¬ 
man,  and  more  injurious  to  the  insulter  than  to  the 
insulted.  It  seemed  to  be  difficult  for  ancient  democ¬ 
racies  to  prevent  this  abuse  of  liberty,  and  the  great 
men  of  Athens  even  preferred  transitory  humiliation 
and  insult  to  ostracism.  Such  insults  in  our  day  would 
provoke  bloody  conflicts.  At  Athens  they  were  en¬ 
dured  with  philosophical  resignation.  Moreover,  the 
blows  received  were  never  mortal,  and  the  injured 
person  was  somewhat  comforted  by  the  hope  of  return¬ 
ing  them  on  some  occasion.  Insulting,  insulted,  out¬ 
raging,  outraged;  such  was  the  common  condition, 
relieved,  of  course,  by  the  prospect  of  revenge  and 
the  thought  of  equality. 

Glaucetes,  Menalopus,  Androtion,  and  Timocrates, 
were  perhaps  less  moved  than  modern  readers  by  the 
insults  which  Demosthenes  puts  in  the  mouth  of  his 
client  Diodorus  (. Against  Timocrates ).  Aristogiton,  who 

*  Antiphon,  invective  against  Alcibiades  ;  Lysias,  against  Eratos¬ 
thenes  and  the  Thirty;  Dinarchus,  against  Demosthenes  (trial  of  Har- 
palus);  Lycurgus,  against  Leocrates,  a  fugitive  merchant  after  Chæ- 
ronea,  and  against  Lysicles;  Hyperides,  against  Demades,  and  even 
against  Demosthenes,  his  friend. 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


305 


never  blushed,  could  receive  bis  accuser’s  assault  with* 
out  much  commotion.  We  must  conclude  that  either 
Aristogiton  committed  the  crimes  imputed  to  him,  and 
in  that  case  the  author  of  such  acts  was  able  to  endure 
a  just  representation  of  them,  or  that  he  was  innocent, 
and  therefore  his  enemy’s  odious  exaggeration  de¬ 
stroyed  its  own  force,  and  fell  upon  his  incredulous 
audience  without  effect.  Aristogiton  left  his  father  in 
prison;  the  old  man  died.  His  excellent  son  refused 
to  bury  him,  and  even  brought  suit  against  those  who 
discharged  his  duty  at  tlieir  own  expense.  He  struck 
his  mother;  he  sold  his  sister  for  exportation.*  Zobia, 
a  woman,  received  him  kindly  at  her  house.  He 
dragged  her  before  the  magistrates,  and  endeavored  to 
sell  his  benefactress.  Thrown  into  prison,  he  stole 
from  a  fellow-prisoner  a  bill  of  exchange,  and  besides, 
he  cut  off  his  nose. 

From  the  private  man  judge  the  citizen. 

“  No  man  in  Athens  is  stained  with  greater  and  more 
numerous  vices.  Why,  then,  should  we  save  him?  He  is  the 
people’s  dog,  they  say;  yes,  but  one  of  those  curs  which,  in¬ 
stead  of  biting  what  we  call  wolves,  devour  the  sheep  whose 
guardians  they  pretend  to  be.  What  orator  has  he  summoned 

*  1 Etz  èçayœyÀ  àxédoTo.  Timocrates  was  also  reproached  for 
disposing  of  his  parents  in  this  manner.  “A  deputy  who  was  a 
guest  of  Timocrates  and  an  inhabitant  of  Corcyra,  a  city  hostile  to 
Athens,  wished  to  have  his  sister  (we  omit  his  motive).  How  much 
for  her?  So  much.  Take  her.  *  *  *  And  now  she  is  in  Corcyra.” 
(Didot.)  Satyrus  declared  to  Philip  that  he  would  not  derive  any 
profit  ( /.epdavà)  oùôév)  from  the  daughters  of  his  friend  Apolloplia- 
nes,  when  he  besought  that  prince  to  give  them  to  him  (Embassy). 
Aristophanes  represents  a  Magarian  as  less  particular.  He  sold  his 
two  young  daughters  for  a  little  garlic  and  a  measure  of  salt.  “  Oh, 
Mercury,  god  of  commerce,  would  that  I  could  sell  my  mother  and 
wife  at  the  same  price!”  With  such  men  Philip  could  easily  come 
to  an  agreement. 

13* 


306 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


to  justice  since  his  reappearance  on  the  rostrum?  None  but 
private  individuals.*  It  has  been  said  that  when  a  dog  has 
once  tasted  mutton  he  should  be  killed.  Therefore  kill 
Aristogiton  as  soon  as  possible.  He  renders  you,  Athenians, 
none  of  the  services  of  which  he  boasts;  his  designs  are  alto¬ 
gether  criminal  and  impudent.  *  *  *  He  advances  on  the 
public  place  like  a  viper  or  scorpion,  with  poisonous  sting; 
he  darts  from  side  to  side  spying  his  unfortunate  victim  in 
order  to  pierce  him  with  his  calumnies,  or  afflict  him  with 
some  evil,  or  intimidate  him  and  then  impose  upon  him.  *  *  * 
A  savage,  a  vagabond,  an  enemy  to  all  good  society,  he  is  igno¬ 
rant  of  the  blessing  of  civility,  friendship  and  all  the  inclina¬ 
tions  of  honest  people.  He  prowls  about,  escorted  by  mon¬ 
sters  with  whom  painters  surround  the  impious  in  Hades, — 
Imprecation,  Calumny,  Envy,  Sedition,  and  Discord.  Such  is 
the  wretch  whom  the  infernal  gods,  far  from  pitying,  would 
consign  to  the  ranks  of  the  impious;  and  you,  not  satisfied 
with  pardoning  this  criminal  who  has  been  delivered  to  your 
justice,  would  accord  to  him  not  only  impunity,  but  favors 
which  have  been  refused  to  benefactors  of  the  commonwealth. 

“If  a  cancer,  a  gnawing  ulcer,  or  any  other  malady,  has 
triumphed  over  remedies,  the  physicians  burn  them  out  or 
cut  them  out  with  the  knife.  In  like  manner  banish,  expel 
from  Athens,  this  incorrigible  beast;  exterminate  him  from 
the  city  before  he  wounds  you.  None  of  you,  perhaps,  have 
ever  been  bitten  by  a  viper  or  a  tarantula,  and  I  hope  you 
never  will  be.  Nevertheless  as  soon  as  you  see  one  of  these 
animals,  you  readily  kill  it.  In  like  manner,  Athenians,  as 
soon  as  you  see  the  reptile  called  sycophant,  full  of  gall  and 
poison,  do  not  await  until  he  bites  some  one  of  you,  but  let 
the  one  who  is  first  threatened  always  strike  him.”  f 

*  “  Quid  immerentes  hospites  vexas,  canis 

Ignavus  adversum  lupos?”  (Horace,  Epochs ,  6.) 

f  Didot.  The  comparison  of  orators  with  vipers  seemed  established 
at  Athens.  (Cf.  Oratores  Attici ,  §  84.) 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


307 


Æscliines  treated  Timarchus  no  better;  and  yet  he 
declared  that  he  used  the  greatest  moderation  toward 
him.  He  could  have  ex}30sed  his  childhood  to  oppro¬ 
brium.  He  generously  declined  to  do  so.  He  was 
willing  to  forget  it,  like  the  acts  of  the  Thirty,  previous 
to  the  archonship  of  Euclides.  But  with  what  rapture 
he  compensated  himself  on  the  youth  and  manhood  of 
the  accused!  We  will  not  cite  any  of  the  prosecutor’s 
address.  Its  impudence  equaled  that  of  his  own  life. 
The  speech  Against  Midias  is  more  approachable.  It 
presents  the  special  character  of  a  tribunitial  pamphlet, 
and  recalls  the  harangues  of  the  plebeians,  arousing 
popular  indignation  against  the  insolence  of  the  Appii. 
Cicero  taught  his  pupil  to  excite  the  passion  of  envy, 
“the  most  penetrating  of  all.”  Livy’s  orators  never 
employed  this  device  with  more  art  than  did  the  author 
of  In  Midi  am. 


“  Must  I  tell  you,  Athenians,  that  between  the  rich  and 
us,  the  mass  of  the  people,  there  exists  neither  equality  nor 
common  right?  No,  neither  of  these  exists.  The  wealthy 
are  granted  all  the  delay  they  desire  before  appearing,  and 
their  crimes  are  superannuated  and  cold  when  they  are  dis¬ 
cussed  before  the  tribunal.  But  among  us  the  perpetrator  of 

They  have  wit¬ 
nesses  ready  to  come  forward  and  prostitute  themselves 
(< pOsîpîfjOai )  at  their  call,  and  all  the  slanderers  fly  to  them 
to  accuse  us;  and  in  my  case  you  see  how  citizens  have  even 
refused  me  a  testimony  of  veracity.  Consider  why  you  are 
assembled  here  together.  Isolated,  you  are  too  weak  to  com¬ 
pete  with  citizens  who  are  proud  of  their  friends,  their 
riches,  and  a  thousand  resources,  but  from  your  union  you 
derive  a  force  superior  to  each  of  them,  and  you  check  their 
insolence. 

“  Where,  then,  is  his  magnificence?  Where  are  his  bur¬ 
densome  magistracies?  I  do  not  see,  unless  we  consider  his 


a  trivial  offense  is  condemned  immediately 


308 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


palace  at  Eleusis,  which  obscures  all  homes  in  the  neighbor¬ 
hood.  Where  are  his  great  liberalities?  The  two  white 
horses  from  Sicyon,  with  which  he  conducts  his  wife  to  the 
mysteries  of  Ceres,  or  wherever  her  whims  may  direct;  the 
three  or  four  slaves  who  always  attend  him  when  strutting 
about  in  public  places;  when  speaking  of  his  precious  cups, 
his  vases  and  his  rich  flagons,  in  a  tone  loud  enough  to  be 
heard  by  the  passers  by.*  What  advantages,  citizens,  do  you 
derive  from  Midias’  opulence  and  from  his  pompous  luxury? 
I  do  not  know,  but  I  see  the  outrages  which  he,  proud  of  his 
gold,  has  perpetrated  On  the  multitude  and  on  the  first  whom 
he  encounters.  *  *  * 

“Wealthy  and  eloquent,  this  enemy  of  the  Gods  sees  in 
others  only  impure  beings,  beggars  and  worthless  people 
(robç  oùdév).  What  will  this  proud  contemner  not  do  if  he  is 
acquitted!  As  soon  as  the  first  sentence  condemns  him, 
Midias  declaims,  inveighs  and  protests.  If  the  question  is  an 
election,  Midias  of  Anagyrontes  advances  to  the  front.  He  is 
Plutarch’s  man  of  affairs.  He  is  involved  in  secrets.  Athens 
cannot  hold  him.  Now,  in  all  these  motives  he  evidently 
has  no  other  object  than  to  show  that  the  sentence  of  the 
people  has  not  reached  him.  He  does  not  fear  it.  He  does 
not  dread  the  consequence.  To  think  that  he  would  degrade 
himself  if  he  should  seem  to  fear  you,  to  boast  of  braving 
you, —  does  not  this,  Athenians,  deserve  death  ten  times?  Yes, 

*  Midias  displays  liis  riches.  He  therefore  insults  the  poor  peo¬ 
ple.  If  he  was  simple  in  his  mode  of  life,  and  reserved  in  his  man¬ 
ners,  would  he  escape  slander?  Not  at  all.  Stephanus  has  an  austere 
figure.  He  walks  along  the  walls.  He  means  to  pass  for  an  humble 
man,  and  is  only  an  avaricious  egotist,  whose  sole  thought  is  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  his  purse.  A  frowning  look,  a  cold  exterior,  will  serve 
him  as  a  barrier  against  solicitors  and  beggars  (Didot).  It  is  difficult 
to  satisfy  all  and  the  Athenian  sycophant.  Nicias  was  brave  in  w-ar. 
He  lived  at  Athens,  and  his  heart  was  always  sad  at  the  thought  of 
informers.  He  seldom  went  out.  He  walked  very  discreetly  on  the 
public  ways,  and  always  had  money  in  his  hand  for  the  needy.  (Plu¬ 
tarch,  Life  of  Nicias.) 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


309 


he  imagines  that  you  will  be  unable  to  pronounce  on  his  fate. 
Wealthy,  audacious,  haughty  in  his  notions,  haughty  in  his 
language,  violent,  bold,  when  will  you  seize  him  if  he  escapes 
you  to-day? 

“If  he  were  innocent  in  other  respects,  the  orations  with 
which  he  addresses  you,  the  circumstances  under  which  he 
pronounces  them,  would,  in  my  opinion,  deserve  the  severest 
punishment.  You  know  that  when  news  favorable  to  our 
country,  and  delightful  to  us  all,  has  been  announced,  Midias 
has  never  been  seen  among  the  number  of  those  who  con¬ 
gratulated  the  people  and  shared  their  joy.  But  if  one  of 
those  reverses,  which  we  would  all  have  wished  to  avert, 
happens,  he  is  the  first  to  rise;  he  immediately  mounts  the 
tribune,  he  adds  insults  to  the  misfortune  of  the  times,  and, 
triumphing  in  consequence  of  the  silence  to  which  sadness 
and  misfortune  have  reduced  you,  he  exclaims:  ‘Indeed, 
Athenians,  you  are  strange  people;  you  do  not  go  to  the 
war,  you  refuse  to  contribute  to  it,  and  then  you  are  sur¬ 
prised  at  your  want  of  success!  Do  you  imagine  that  I  will 
contribute  for  you,  and  that  you  will  enjo}7-  my  liberality? 
Do  you  believe  that  I  am  disposed  to  equip  vessels  in  which 
you  will  not  embark?’  Behold  how  he  insults  you,  and  on 
every  occasion  he  unveils  that  bitterness  and  malevolence 
which  his  heart  secretly  nourishes  against  the  people.  Well, 
then,  Athenians,  when  he  will  employ  his  lamentations,  his 
tears  and  his  prayers  to  abuse  and  mislead  you,  answer  him 
in  your  turn:  “  Indeed,  Midias,  you  are  a  strange  man.  You 
are  lavish  in  your  insults;  you  refuse  to  suppress  violence 
with  your  hands,  and  then  you  are  surprised  to  find  your¬ 
self  the  victim  of  wickedness!  Do  you  imagine  that  we  will 
bow  under  your  blows,  and  that  you  will  strike  us  with  im¬ 
punity?  that  our  suffrages  will  pardon  you,  and  that  you 
will  persist  in  your  violence?  ” 

Demosthenes  attributed  to  Midias  words  which  had 
more  than  once  honored  our  orator,  but  he  clothed 


310 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


them  in  accents  of  haughty  contempt  when  applied 
to  Midias.  He  reproached  Midias  for  using  them,  as 
Æschines,  in  a  later  day,  reproached  Demosthenes 
for  the  same  words  and  to  the  same  end  —  exciting 
popular  feeling  against  a  courageous  censor.  Demos¬ 
thenes  in  fact  eulogized  Midias  without  intending  to. 

“Suppose,  Oh  Judges,  that  our  wishes  reject  this  pre¬ 
vision,  and  that  it  will  not  be  realized;  but  suppose  that 
these  men,  with  Midias  and  his  equals,  are  masters  of  the 
commonwealth.  A  private  citizen  arrested  in  the  ranks  of 
the  people,  guilty  of  some  offense  toward  one  of  those  men, 
but  a  mild  offense  compared  with  Midias’  insult  toward 
me  —  suppose  this  citizen  appears  before  a  tribunal  com¬ 
posed  of  such  judges,  do  you  think  that  he  will  receive 
pardon,  or  the  right  to  defend  himself?  Will  they  immedi¬ 
ately  pardon  him?  will  they  hear  the  prayers  of  a  man  of 
the  people?  will  they  not  rather  cry  out:  ‘  The  envious,  the 
miserable  wretch!  he  is  insolent;  he  ought  to  deem  him¬ 
self  fortunate  that  he  is  permitted  to  live!’  Treat  them, 
Athenians,  as  they  would  treat  you;  be  not  dazzled  by  their 
riches  or  their  credit;  but  consider  what  you  are.  They 
have  much  property,  in  the  possession  of  which  no  one 
troubles  them;  in  their  turn  let  them  not  trouble  you  in 
the  security  of  yours;  the  law  assures  every  citizen  the  en¬ 
joyment  of  his  rights.” 

In  other  words,  be  toward  the  wealthy  what  the 
wealthy  would  be  toward  you, —  pitiless  and  lawless. 
This  is  a  strange  way  to  defend  the  rights  of  the 
people,  and  to  plead  equality.  “I  ask  that  the  ac¬ 
quittal  or  condemnation  shall  not  depend  on  the  will 
of  such  or  such  a  one;  but  that  the  accused  shall 
receive  the  judgment  due  him  according  to  facts 
which  protect  or  defeat  him.  Such  is  the  spirit  of 
democracy  ”  (Embassy).  Thus  spoke  Æschines’  ac- 


INVECTIVE  IN  GEEEK  ELOQUENCE. 


311 


cuser.  Midias’  accuser  seemed  to  understand  the 
laws  of  democracy  otherwise.  He  created  hatred 
among  citizens  by  the  iniquity  of  retaliation;  he  added 
fuel  to  the  flame  of  spite  and  popular  jealousy,  and 
when  he  saw  the  audience  exasperated,  and  worked 
up  to  the  pitch  to  which  his  personal  passion  carried 
them,  he  did  not  forget  to  say  when  sentence  was 
about  to  be  pronounced:  “  Remain  firm  in  the  opin¬ 
ions  which  you  hold  at  this  moment.”  So  much  did 
he  fear  that  the  kindled  hatred  would  grow  cold,  and 
vengeance  would  escape  him! 

Demosthenes,  the  statesman,  strengthened  himself 
by  holding  the  balance  of  power  between  the  different 
parties  of  the  city.  He  addressed  them  with  an  au¬ 
thority  which  was  justified  by  an  impartial  devotion. 
Personal  feeling  inspired  the  private  citizen  with  re¬ 
criminations  worthy  of  a  seditious  demagogue.  What 
wonder  that  the  sycophants  often  had  the  best  of  the 
case  before  a  tribunal  prepared  in  this  manner?  if 
Demosthenes  stooped  like  them  to  employ  the  basest 
passions  ?  if  he  stirred  up  the  poor  against  the  rich, 
the  low  against  the  great  ?  The  Oratio  in  Midiam 
was  not  pronounced.  It  ought  never  to  have  been 
written.  We  see  in  it  a  remarkable  specimen  of  the 
license  of  Athenian  eloquence  and  an  illustrious  ex¬ 
ample  of  the  power  which  custom  had  over  minds  that 
were  badly  governed.  It  was  necessary  to  brand  an 
adversary,  and  under  all  circumstances  to  render  him 
odious  in  order  to  condemn  him  before  the  people. 
Demosthenes  submitted  to  this  usage  and  did  not  deem 
it  derogatory.  The  evil  which  he  did  his  enemies  his 
enemies  inflicted  on  him  every  day.  Why  should  De¬ 
mosthenes  not  insult  Midias  when  Æsclnnes  convoked 
all  Greece  before  the  lieliasts  to  insult  Demosthenes  ? 


312 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


According  to  Demosthenes,  Æschines  raised  the  de¬ 
bate  On  the  Grown  merely  to  have  an  illustrious  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  drag  him  in  the  mud.  The  pamphleteer’s 
violence  and  desperation  seem  to  justify  this  suspicion. 
Æschines’  regret  is  that  his  virtuous  indignation  is 
not  shared  by  the  people.  ‘‘Such  is  your  disposition 
toward  Demosthenes.  Habit  has  hardened  you  on 
the  recital  of  his  crimes.  You  must  change,  Athe¬ 
nians;  you  must  be  indignant  and  punish  if  you  would 
save  the  wreck  of  the  commonwealth.”*  The  orator 
aided  them  to  the  best  of  his  ability  in  inspiring  proper 
sentiments.  “If  there  is  in  any  part  of  the  world  any 
kind  of  perversity  in  which  I  cannot  prove  that  De¬ 
mosthenes  has  excelled,  I  demand  death.”  These  are 
declarations  rich  with  promises,  and  if  the  insulter  did 
not  hold  to  them  it  was  no  fault  of  his.  If  he  attacked 
a  man  he  noted  his  dissolute  manners  and  his  contempt 
for  all  family  affections.  We  know  how  he  wept  over 
his  daughter.  Go  and  ask  Cnosion  what  price  he  laid 
upon  his  faithful  wife.  We  are  told  that  it  costs  more 
to  support  one  vice  than  two  children.  Demosthenes, 
who  has  no  (legitimate)  children,  labors  hard  to  sup¬ 
port  his  vices.  Very  soon  ruined,  he  sells  himself 
to  clients,  an  unfaithful  logographer,  a  hireling  and 
deceiver  of  both  parties.  This  enemy  of  tyrants  (tf 
A uaoTüpavvoç )  sold  himself  to  Philip  and  Alexander,  and 
then  insulted  them  in  order  to  better  conceal  his  game, 
which  all  know.  There  is  not  a  single  member  of  his 
body,  not  excepting  his  tongue,  which  he  has  not  sold, 
and  yet  he  claims  to  be  an  Aristides  !  Midias  boxed 
his  ears  in  public, —  a  fortunate  encounter!  Demos- 

*  Didot.  We  here  make  an  allusion  indistinctively  to  the  invec¬ 
tives  directed  against  Demosthenes  in  the  speeches  On  the  Embassy , 
On  the  Crown ,  and  in  the  pleading  Against  Timarchus. 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


313 


tlienes  will  cash  these  handy-cuffs.  No  money  is  un¬ 
acceptable  to  him,  not  even  that  which  lie  hoped  to 
extort  from  his  cousin,  Demomeles  of  Peania,  by  in¬ 
dicting  blows  upon  his  own  head  with  his  own  hand. 

As  a  public  man,  Demosthenes  must  have  elbow 
room,  he  must  do  things  on  a  great  scale.  Formerly 
he  contented  himself  with  the  cheating  of  rich  orphans, 
with  the  defrauding  of  his  pupils,  and  with  the  despoil¬ 
ing  of  an  unfortunate  exile,  Aristarchus.  Henceforth 
this  u  jmrse-cutter  ”  (fiaXavrcoTÔ/j.oç')  will  pilfer  the  finances 
of  the  state.  He  will  turn  to  his  own  profit  the  trib¬ 
utes  of  our  allies.  He  will  attribute  to  himself  the 
liberties  of  foreign  people.  Was  he  not  convicted  of 
the  theft  of  sixty-six  talents  offered  by  Darius,  at  a 
time  when  nine  of  those  talents  would  have  secured 
the  safety  of  the  Thebans,  whose  misfortune  drew  so 
many  tears  from  him  ?  Did  he  not  pilfer  a  whole 
squadron  of  sixty-five  vessels  ?  Such  a  man,  returning 
to  his  trade  of  sophistry,  ill  deserves  to  succeed  in  his 
oratorical  schemes.  And  what  an  insidious  address  he 
has  !  What  perfidy  in  his  speeches  !  Does  the  im¬ 
pudent,  perjured  debater  forget  that  uhe  must  change 
his  hearers  or  the  gods?”  He  is  a  “ modern  Tlier- 
sites  ”  as  regards  his  insolence  and  cowardice.  Brave 
in  words,  cowardly  in  combat,  ever  ready  to  talk  and 
impotent  to  act.  Stained  with  all  vices,  he  affects 
virtue.  ( xdOapp.a  Ç^Iotû-ouv  àperrjv.')  He  has  been  im¬ 
plicated  in  two  assassinations.*  A  violator  of  the 
most  sacred  laws,  he  prosecutes  his  friends  criminally 

*  Greek  calumnies  sometimes  border  on  the  ridiculous.  A  dis¬ 
ciple  of  Epicurus,  Idomeneus  of  Lampsacus,  accused  Pericles  of 
having  treacherously  killed  Ephialtes,  his  intimate  friend,  the  con¬ 
fidant  and  coadjutor  of  his  plans.  “I  do  not  know,”  says  Plutarch 
{Life  of  Pericles ,  10),  “where  Idomeneus  met  with  this  calumny, 
which  he  vents  with  great  bitterness  against  this  great  man.” 

14 


314 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


and  has  them  condemned  to  death.  He  accuses  others 
of  versatility, —  “this  deserter  whom  the  scorching 
iron  has  neglected  to  brand,”  this  “  brute,  unworthy 
of  the  name  of  man.”  The  most  notorious  criminals 
of  Greece,  Eurybates  and  Phrynondas,  were  ordinary 
scoundrels  compared  to  him.  What  wonder  if  the 
malediction  connected  with  his  impure  nature  and  with 
his  impiety  has  ruined  the  state  and  provoked  dis¬ 
asters  which  have  disturbed  the  world  ? 

This  modified  sketch  from  Æscliines1  tablets  gives 
some  idea  of  the  violence  expressed  in  the  original, 
and  inspires  us  with  little  confidence  in  Æscliines’  in¬ 
nocence.  You  are  angry,  therefore  you  are  wrong. 
Demosthenes  touches  the  secret  wound  with  the  sharp 
point  of  his  stylet.  The  wounded  man  cries  out.  En¬ 
able  to  justify  himself,  he  offers  insult.  “You  know, 
of  course,  on  the  late  occasion  in  the  Piræus,  when 
you  would  not  allow  him  to  be  your  envoy,  how  he 
shouted  out  that  he  would  impeach  and  indict  me,  with 
cries  of  c  Shame,  shame  !  ’  ”  Yet  all  that  is  the  prelude 
to  numerous  contests  and  arguments,  whereas  these 
are  simple,  and  perhaps  but  two  or  three  words,  which 
a  slave  bought  yesterday  might  have  spoken.  “  Athe¬ 
nians,  it  is  atrocious.  Here  is  a  man  accusing  me  of 
what  he  himself  has  been  concerned  in,  and  saying  that 
I  have  taken  money,  when  he  has  taken  it  himself.” 
Nothing  of  this  kind  did  he  say  or  utter.  None  of 
you  heard  him,  but  he  threatened  something  different. 
Why  ?  Because  he  was  conscious  of  guilt,  and  not  in¬ 
dependent  enough  to  speak  those  words.  His  resolu¬ 
tion  never  reached  that  point,  but  shrank  back,  for  his 
conscience  checked  it.  No  one,  however,  prevented 
him  from  indulging  in  general  abuse  and  calumny.”* 

*  Embassy,  §  209. 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


315 


Even  here  Æscliines  betrays  himself.  Ilis  violence  is 

%j 

turned  against  himself.  “  I  have  seen  men,”  says  he, 
“who  drew  hatred  on  themselves  by  speaking  too  dis¬ 
tinctly  of  others’  turpitudes.”  It  is  not  Æscliines’ 
clearness  or  frankness  that  defames  him  in  our  eyes, 
but  the  very  excess  of  his  rage. 

Demosthenes  frequently  complained  of  Æscliines’ 
“cruelty.”  This  cruelty  was  very  apparent  in  the 
bitterness  and  envenomed  address  of  his  invectives. 
Never  was  an  orator  more  dexterous  in  painting  feel¬ 
ings  and  actions  in  odious  colors,  and  in  flattering 
the  base  instincts  of  the  multitude  to  the  detriment  of 
an  enemy.  The  terms  in  which  Demosthenes  char¬ 
acterizes  Æscliines’  outrageous  hatred  are  not  too 
strong.  Æscliines  smears  him  with  mud  ( 'r.por^laxiffp.ôç) ; 
he  vomits  upon  him  “old  dregs”  ( kwXoxpaffiav ),  and  the 
frightful  mixture  of  his  corruption  and  iniquities.”  We 
can  understand  how  Demosthenes,  lacerated  by  so  ven¬ 
omous  a  tooth,  twice  believed  that  he  ought  to  appeal 
to  all  the  immortal  gods  in  his  exordiums.  It  seems 
that  their  united  protections  would  not  be  sufficient  to 
save  him. 

III.  Demosthenes  declared  that  he  was  not  “fond  of 
invective  by  nature”  (ov  <pdoXo(dopoç  <pbaet),  He  had  no 
particular  taste  for  insults,  hut  if  he  was  not  fond  of 
pamphlets,  he  was  occasionally  very  competent  to  use 
them.  We  have  already  mentioned  the  impressive 
sensibility  of  Demosthenes.  Æscliines  compared  him 
to  a  woman  on  account  of  the  vivacity  of  his  passion 
( [yuvaixsiu >  à'sOnw-aj  zrp  opyrjv).  Now,  every  sensitive  mind 
is  naturally  vindicative.  Byron  and  Pope  in  their  satires 
afford  striking  illustrations  of  this.  Those  minds  which 
are  most  accessible  to  kind  impressions  are  sometimes 


316 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


so  to  contrary  emotions;  their  sensibility  forces  them 
to  be  always  profoundly  touched.  And  so  Demosthe¬ 
nes,  who  had  a  nervous  nature  and  was  easily  moved 
to  tears,  seemed  more  capable  than  the  phlegmatic  of 
piercing  resentments.  This  is  apparent  from  the  smart¬ 
ing  wound  which  the  outrages  of  Midias  inflicted  on 
his  pride.  Even  after  long  days  the  wound  pierced 
him. 

“  It  is  by  an  eneni}r  when  sober,  in  the  morning,  with  out¬ 
rageous  intentions  and  not  under  the  influence  of  wine,  in 
the  presence  of  a  great  number  of  citizens  and  strangers, 
that  I  have  been  insulted.  *  *  *  It  is  not  the  blow,  it  is  the 
affront,  that  excites  my  wrath.  A  free  man  not  only  deems 
himself  unworthy  to  be  struck,  but  he  deems  himself  un¬ 
worthy  to  be  struck  and  insulted.  Many  circumstances 
accompanied  the  blow,  some  of  which  cannot,  Athenians,  be 
expressed  by  him  who  received  it.  The  action,  the  look,  the 
tone  of  a  man  who  strikes  to  insult,  who  strikes  through 
hatred,  who  strikes  with  clinched  fist,  who  strikes  upon  the 
cheek;  this  is  what  provokes,  this  is  what  exasperates  men 
who  are  not  accustomed  to  be  covered  with  mud.” 

The  affront  which  Æschines  offered  in  the  eyes  of  all 
Greece  could  be  no  less  grievous  to  him.  Compelled  to 
defend  himself,  Demosthenes  did  not  wish  to  abandon 
the  tribune  and  be  worsted  (e/wv  eXarrov).  He  therefore 
returned  outrage  for  outrage  “with  a  moderation  as 
great  as  possible,”  confining  himself  to  “strict  neces¬ 
sity.”  Æschines  prescribed  his  course.  He  pretended 
to  demonstrate  that  Demosthenes’  private  fortune  had 
precipitated  the  ruin  of  public  affairs.  Demosthenes 
established  the  fact  that  he  was  better  than  Æschines, 
and  born  of  better  ancestors,  and  that  in  all  respects 
the  condition  of  his  entire  life  had  been  happier  than 
that  of  his  accuser.  The  compass  of  the  antithesis  can 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


317 


easily  be  conjectured.  Æscliines’  entire  life  was  de¬ 
meaned,  and  not  only  Æscliines,  but  bis  friends,  bad  to 
pass  under  tbe  orator’s  lasli.  This  proceeding,  justified 
in  tliis  case  by  particular  circumstances,  was,  however, 
familiar  to  Greek  eloquence.  Parents,  friends  and  de¬ 
fenders  of  opposing  parties  were  maltreated  in  like 
manner.*  They  did  not  even  always  await  tbe  person’s 
birth  to  ridicule  him;  they  anteceded  tbe  cradle.  Midias 
was  born,  as  all  know,  secretly,  mysteriously,  like  a 
certain  hero  of  tragedy.  As  soon  as  be  was  born  bis 
mother  wished  to  do  him  justice  in  advance.  Like  a 
woman  of  good  sense,  she  sold  him;  another  woman 
bought  him.  Foolish  woman!  Could  she  not  have 
made  a  better  purchase  at  the  same  price  ?  *  *  * 
The  rest  in  the  future.  Aristophanes  did  not  curse 
his  enemies  as  far  back  as  the  fourth  generation, 
but  he  unmercifully  persecuted  them  (for  example, 
Lamachus  and  Cleonymes)  in  their  infancy.  Greek 
eloquence  was  equally  unmerciful.  Æscliines,  who 
termed  Demosthenes  the  “bastard  of  a  sword-cutler,” 
could  not  cast  reflections  on  his  father  and  mother  as 
he  would  like  to  do  (his  father  was  a  “  freed-man,  it 
cannot  be  denied);  he  therefore  went  back  to  his  grand¬ 
mother,  “  a  barbarian,”  and  to  his  maternal  ancestor,  a 
certain  Gylon,  who  “was  condemned  to  death  as  a 
traitor.”  Demosthenes  sgid  that  he  feared  to  give 
details  concerning  Æscliines’  family  because  they  would 
be  unworthy  of  his  accuser.  And  yet  he  gave  them 
and  even  lavished  them  without  much  regard  for  his 
own  dignity. 

We  regret  to  see  so  finished  a  work  as  the  oration 
On  the  Crown  disfigured  by  gross  outrages  which  are 
repugnant  to  modern  delicacy.  We  could  pardon  De- 

*  Lysias,  Against  Eratosthenes ,  §§  62,  78. 


318 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


mosthenes  for  his  railleries  addressed  to  Æschines’ 
father,  the  slave  Tromes  (the  Trembler)  transforming 
himself  into  Atrometus  (the  Fearless).  But  does  it 
become  him  to  condemn  Glaucothea,  the  common 
courtesan  Empussa,  the  gypsy  who  married  every 
day  in  the  week  ?  Even  Aristophanes  does  not  ridicule, 
to  such  extremes,  the  herb-seller  who  presented  Athens 
with  Euripides  the  sophist.  Æschines  allows  his  family 
to  be  traduced  before  the  tribunal  called  to  pass  judg¬ 
ment  on  the  Embassy.  It  is  also  traduced  in  Demos¬ 
thenes’  oration,  but  under  the  maledictions  of  an  enemy 
who  spits  in  his  face.  What  has  become  of  the  mag¬ 
nanimous  and  patriotic  magistrate  who  was  inspired 
with  the  majesty  of  Athens  '(  While  hearing  Æschines 
and  Demosthenes  one  would  believe  himself  trans¬ 
ported  from  the  Propylæa  to  the  midst  of  the  market¬ 
place.  A  merchant-woman  recognized  Theophrastus  by 
his  foreign  accent.  The  accent  of  the  two  antagonists 
was  undoubtedly  Attic;  but  did  Atticism  find  place  in 
invectives  which  were  apparently  borrowed  from  the 
heart  of  the  Piræus  ? 

We  will  here  omit  what  our  orator  likewise  ought  to 
have  omitted,  and  we  will  only  quote  a  page  which  is 
worthy  of  him  : 

“  But  you,  the  man  of  dignity,  who  spit  upon  others,  look 
what  sort  of  fortune  is  yours  compared  with  mine!  As  a 
boy,  you  were  reared  in  abject  poverty,  waiting  with  your 
father  on  the  school,  grinding  the  ink,  sponging  the  benches, 
sweeping  the  room,  doing  the  duty  of  a  menial  rather  than  a 
freeman’s  son.  After  you  were  grown  up  you  attended  your 
mother’s  initiations,  reading  her  books  and  helping  in  all  the 
ceremonies.  At  night,  wrapping  the  noviciates  in  fawn-skin, 
swilling,  purifying  and  scouring  them  with  clay  and  bran, 
raising  them  after  lustrations,  and  bidding  them  say  ‘ Bad  1 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


319 


have  'scaped,  and  better  I  have  found  ’  ;  priding  yourself  that  no 
one  ever  bowled*  so  lustily,  —  and  I  believe  him!  for  don’t 
suppose  that  be  who  speaks  so  loud  is  not  a  splendid  bowler! 
In  the  daytime  you  lead  your  noble  orgiasts,  crowned  with 
fennel  and  poplar,  through  the  highways,  squeezing  the  big¬ 
cheeked  serpents,  and  lifting  them  over  your  head,  and  shout¬ 
ing  Eva  Saba ,  and  capering  to  the  words  Hyes  Attes ,  Attes 
Hyes ,  saluted  by  the  beldames  as  Leader,  Conductor,  Chest- 
bearer,  Fan-bearer,  and  the  like,  getting  as  your  reward 
tarts  and  biscuits  and  rolls,  for  which  any  man  might  well 
bless  himself  and  his  fortune! 

“  When  you  were  enrolled  among  your  fellow  townsmen, — 
by  what  means  I  stop  not  to  inquire,  —  when  you  were  en¬ 
rolled,  however,  you  immediately  selected  the  most  honorable 
of  employments,  —  that  of  clerk  and  assistant  to  our  petty 
magistrates.  From  this  you  were  removed  after  awhile, 
having  done  yourself  all  that  you  charge  others  with;  and 
then,  sure  enough,  you  disgraced  not  your  antecedents  by 
your  subsequent  life,  but  hiring  yourself  to  those  ranting 
players,  as  they  were  called,  Simylus  and  Socrates,  you  acted 
third  parts,  collecting  figs  and  grapes  and  olives  like  a  fruit¬ 
erer  from  other  men’s  farms,  and  getting  more  from  them 
than  from  the  playing,  in  which  the  lives  of  your  whole  com¬ 
pany  were  at  stake;  for  there  was  an  implacable  and  inces¬ 
sant  war  between  them  and  the  audience,  from  whom  you 
received  so  many  wounds  that  no  wonder  you  taunt  as 
cowards  people  inexperienced  in  such  encounters. 

But  passing  over  what  may  be  imputed  to  poverty,  I  will 
come  to  the  direct  charges  against  your  character.  You 
espoused  such  a  line  of  politics  (when  at  last  you  thought  of 
taking  to  them)  that,  if  your  country  prospered,  you  lived 
the  life  of  a  hare,  fearing  and  trembling,  and  ever  expecting 
to  be  scourged  for  the  crimes  of  which  your  conscience  ac- 

*  'OXokiizai  designates  a  sharp  cry  probably  analogous  to  the 
youyou  of  the  Mussulmans.  (Cf.  Demosthenes,  Embassy ,  §  209,  ftow^ra 

XCU  U)0  IOU.) 


320 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


cused  you  ;  though  all  have  seen  how  bold  you  were  during 
the  misfortunes  of  the  rest.  A  man  who  took  courage  at  the 
death  of  a  thousand  citizens,  what  does  he  deserve  at  the 
hands  of  the  living?  A  great  deal  more  that  I  could  say 
about  him  I  shall  omit;  for  it  is  not  all  I  can  tell  of  his  tur¬ 
pitude  and  infamy  which  I  ought  to  let  slip  from  my  tongue, 
but  only  what  is  not  disgraceful  to  myself  to  mention. 

“  Contrast  now  the  circumstances  of  your  life  and  mine, 
gently  and  with  temper,  Æschines,  and  then  ask  these  people 
whose  fortune  they  would  each  of  them  prefer.  You  taught 
reading;  I  went  to  school.  You  performed  initiations;  I 
received  them.  You  danced  in  the  chorus;  I  furnished  it. 
You  were  assembly-clerk;  I  was  a  speaker.  You  acted  third 
parts;  I  heard  you.  You  broke  down,  and  I  hissed.  .  You 
have  worked  as  a  statesman  for  the  enemy;  I  for  my  country. 
I  pass  by  the  rest;  but  this  very  day  I  am  on  my  probation 
for  a  crown,  and  am  acknowledged  to  be  innocent  of  all 
offense;  while  you  are  already  judged  to  be  a  pettifogger, 
and  the  question  is,  whether  you  shall  continue  that  trade, 
or  at  once  be  silenced  by  not  getting  a  fifth  part  of  the  votes. 
A  happy  fortune,  do  you  see,  you  have  enjoyed,  that  you 
should  denounce  mine  as  miserable. 

“  Come,  now,  let  me  read  the  evidence  of  the  jury  of  pub¬ 
lic  services  which  I  have  performed.  And  by  way  of  compari- 
son,  do  you  recite  me  the  verses  which  you  murdered: 

“  From  Hades  and  tlie  dusky  realms  I  come.” 

And 

“  Ill  news,  believe  me,  I  am  loth  to  bear.” 

“  Ill  betide  thee,  say  I,  and  may  the  Gods, —  or  at  least  the 
Athenians, —  confound  thee  for  a  vile  citizen  and  a  vile  third- 
rate  actor! 

“  Read  the  evidence!  ”  f 

Demosthenes  was  not  as  disinterested  in  personal 
passions  as  he  professed  to  be.  We  can  conjecture 

f  Pro  Corona.  (Cf.  Embassy ,  passim.) 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


321 


this  from  the  very  care  which  he  took  to  defend  him¬ 
self  against  such  a  charge,  and  from  his  eagerness 
to  throw  upon  his  adversary  the  suspicion  of  such 
feelings.  At  the  time  of  the  Amphissian  war,  Demos¬ 
thenes  wished  to  reveal  Æschines’  manœuvers  with¬ 
out  delay;  his  mouth  was  closed:  “Some  suspected 
me  of  wishing  to  bring  against  him,  through  personal 
animosity,  a  chimerical  accusation.”  The  mutual  ani- 
mosity  of  the  two  orators  was  a  secret  to  no  one  at 
Athens.  The  pleading  Against  Theocrines  distinctly 
made  allusion  to  it.  “When  the  case  was  called,  a 
man  swore  that  the  accused  (Demosthenes)  was  ill; 
and  in  the  meantime  Demosthenes  was  running  about, 
inveighing  against  Æschines.”  Zeal  for  the  public 
welfare,  we  may  suppose,  was  not  always  the  sole 
motive  of  Demosthenes’  fervid  persecution  of  Æschines, 
but  at  least  he  had  the  advantage  of  probity.  One  day 
the  Athenians  wished  to  force  him  to  accuse  a  citizen; 
he  refused,  and  when  the  people  murmured,  he  said: 
“Athenians,  I  will  always  give  you  my  counsels,  even 
when  you  do  not  wish  them;  but  I  will  never  play 
the  sycophant,  even  when  you  wish  it.”  Demos¬ 
thenes  proved  Æschines  a  sycophant,  and  with  more 
dignity  than  the  aggressor  ever  manifested. 

Now,  that  which  consoles  the  reader  for  the  out¬ 
rages  which  Demosthenes  lavished  upon  his  enemy 
is  the  thought  that  the  interested  ally  of  the  Mace¬ 
donians  was  not,  upon  the  whole,  worthy  of  esteem. 
We  could  not  pardon  him  for  having  insulted  and 
ridiculed  Æschines’  humble  occupations  and  his  ne¬ 
cessitous  family,  if  he  had  not  the  right  and  cause  to 
stigmatize  the  citizen.  Demosthenes  revenged  the 
commonwealth  and  the  people  by  revenging  himself. 
Therefore  no  one  could  tell,  by  hearing  his  indignant 


322 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


voice,  wliat  sentiment  inspired  him, — hatred  for  Æs- 
cliines  or  love  for  Athens, —  to  such  a  degree  was 
his  eagerness  to  combat  him  mixed  with  personal 
animosity  and  patriotism.  The  constant  union  of 
these  two  passions,  which  seemed  to  nourish  each 
other  in  him,  gave  to  his  invectives  a  generous  accent, 
which  raised  them  above  an  ordinary  pamphlet. 
When  he  showed  the  prevaricating  deputy  running 
after  Philip  to  the  quarry,  or  selling  a  city  to  which 
he  and  his  friends  owed  so  much,  his  discourse  united 
an  address  embittered  with  private  resentments  to 
one  of  solemn  reprobation  offered  up  by  his  country. 

“  Five  or  six  days  after,  when  the  Phocians  had  been  de¬ 
stroyed,  and  this  man’s  hire  had  come  to  an  end  like  any¬ 
thing  else,  and  Dercylus  had  returned  from  Chalcis,  and 
reported  to  you,  in  assembly  at  the  Piræus,  that  the  Phocians 
were  destroyed;  and  you,  men  of  Athens,  naturally  on  re¬ 
ceiving  that  intelligence,  were  smitten  with  compassion  for 
them  and  terror  on  your  own  account,  and  passed  a  vote  to 
bring  in  your  women  and  children  from  the  country,  and 
to  repair  the  garrisons  and  fortify  the  Piræus,  and  offer  the 
Heraelean  sacrifice  within  the  city, —  in  this  state  of  things, 
when  the  commonwealth  was  in  the  midst  of  such  confusion 
and  alarm,  this  clever,  and  powerful  and  loud-voiced  orator, 
without  any  appointment  by  the  council  or  the  people,  went 
off  as  ambassador  to  the  author  of  all  the  mischief,  taking 
into  account  neither  the  illness  on  which  he  grounded  his 
excuse,  nor  the  fact  that  another  ambassador  had  been  chosen 
in  his  stead,  nor  that  the  law  provides  the  penalty  of  death 
for  such  conduct,  nor  how  monstrous  it  was,  after  reporting 
that  a  price  had  been  set  upon  his  head  in  Thebes,  when  the 
Thebans  had  in  addition  to  the  lordship  of  all  Bceotia  become 
masters  also  of  the  Phocian  territory,  to  take  a  journey  then 
to  the  heart  of  Thebes  and  the  Theban  camp;  so  insane  was 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


323 


he,  so  intent  upon  his  pelf  and  reward,  that  in  defiance  and 
despite  of  all  these  considerations  he  took  himself  off.  *  *  * 

“He  forgot  that  the  safety  of  the  country  is  our  safety; 
that  in  this  same  country  his  mother  owed  to  her  profession 
of  initiations  and  of  purifications,  and  to  the  monejr  accruing 
from  these  practices,  the  means  by  which  she  reared  him  and 
all  his  brothers;  that  here  lived  miserably  his  father,  who 
was  a  schoolmaster;  furthermore,  that  here  these  brothers, 
subaltern  scribes  and  servants  of  all  magistrates,  made 
money;  and  finally,  that,  after  you  chose  these  public  clerks, 
they  were  fed  for  two  years  in  the  Tholos  (a  home  for  the 
State’s  boarders),  and  that  he  himself  left  this  same  country 
as  an  ambassador.  He  has  considered  none  of  these  benefits, 
and  far  from  providing  for  the  prosperous  voyage  of  his 
country,  he  has  prostrated  and  submerged  her.  *  *  * 

“And  yet  you  open  your  mouth  and  dare  to  look  these  men 
in  the  face!  Do  you  think  they  don’t  know  you?  —  that  they 
are  sunk  all  in  such  slumber  and  oblivion?  He  calls  his 
venality  friendship,  indeed;  and  said  somewhere  in  his 
speech:  ‘The  man  who  reproaches  me  with  the  friendship 
of  Alexander.’  I  reproach  you  with  friendship  of  Alexander! 
Whence  gotten,  or  how  merited?  Neither  Philip’s  friend 
nor  Alexander’s  should  I  ever  call  you;  I  am  not  so  mad; 
unless  we  are  to  call  reapers  and  other  hired  laborers  the 
friends  of  those  that  hire  them.  For  upon  what  plea  of 
equality  or  justice  could  Æschines,  son  of  Glaucothea,  the 
timbrel-player,  be  the  friend  or  acquaintance  of  Philip?  I 
cannot  see.  No!  you  were  hired  to  ruin  the  interests  of 
your  countrymen.  Philip’s  hireling  I  called  you  once,  and 
Alexander’s  I  call  you  now.  So  do  all  these  men.  If 
you  disbelieve  me,  ask  them;  or  rather  I  will  do  it  for  you: 
Athenians,  is  Æschines,  think  ye,  the  hireling  or  the  friend 
of  Alexander?  You  hear  what  they  say.”* 

Is  it  hatred  of  an  enemy  or  devotion  to  his  country 
that  gives  Demosthenes  the  impetuous  animation  with 

*  Pro  Corona ,  §§51,  284. 


324 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


which  he  crushes  his  adversary  beneath  the  weight  of 
his  reasoning  and  his  wrath  ? 

“  His  acts  in  the  embassy  having  been  thus  disgraceful,  so 
many,  nay,  all  of  them,  having  been  treason  against  you,  he 
goes  about  saying:  ‘What  name  does  Demosthenes  deserve, 
who  accuses  his  colleagues?1  Verily  I  accuse,  whether  I 
will  or  no,  having  been  so  plotted  against  by  you  during  the 
whole  of  my  absence,  and  having  the  choice  of  two  things 
left  me,  either  in  acts  of  such  a  description  to  be  thought 
your  accomplice,  or  to  accuse.  I  say  that  I  have  not  been 
your  colleague  at  all  in  the  embassy,  but  that  you  did  many 
heinous  things  as  ambassador,  and  I  did  what  was  best  for 
these  people.  Philocrates  has  been  your  colleague,  and  you 
and  Phrynon  his,  for  you  all  did  these  things  and  approved 
of  them.  But  where  is  the  salt?  Where  the  social  boards 
and  libations?  Such  is  the  rant  he  goes  about  with,  as  if 
doers  of  justice,  and  not  doers  of  iniquity,  were  the  betrayers 
of  these  things!  I  know  that  all  the  presidents  on  every 
occasion  sacrifice  in  common  and  sup  with  each  other  and 
pour  libations  together;  and  the  good  do  not  on  this  account 
imitate  the  bad,  but  if  they  find  any  of  their  body  commit¬ 
ting  an  offense  they  inform  the  council  and  the  people.  In 
like  manner  the  council  offer  their  opening  sacrifice,  banquet 
together,  join  in  libations  and  ceremonials.  So  do  the  gen¬ 
erals,  and  I  may  say  nearly  all  the  magistrates;  but  do  they 
on  such  account  allow  impunity  to  their  members  who  com¬ 
mit  crime?  Far  from  it.  Leon  accused  Timagoras,  after 
having  been  four  years  his  co-ambassador;  Eubulus  accused 
Tharrex  and  Smicythas,  after  having  been  their  messmate. 
The  famous  Conon  of  old  accused  Adimantus,  after  having 
shared  the  command  with  him.  Which,  then,  violated  the 
salt  and  the  cup? — Æschines,  the  traitors,  the  false  ambassa¬ 
dors  and  acceptors  of  bribes,  or  their  accusers?  Assuredly 
the  men  of  iniquity  violated,  as  you  have  done,  the  sanctities 
of  their  whole  country,  not  merely  those  of  private  fellow¬ 
ship. 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


325 


“  What  man  in  the  commonwealth  should  you  say  was  the 
most  odious  blackguard,  with  the  largest  stock  of  impudence 
and  insolence?  Not  one  of  you,  I  am  certain,  could  even  by 
mistake  name  any  other  than  Philocrates.  What  man  speaks 
the  loudest,  and  can  utter  what  he  likes  with  the  clearest 
voice? — Æschines  the  defendant,  I  am  sure.  Whom  do  these 
men  call  spiritless  and  cowardly  with  the  mob,  while  I  call 
him  reserved?  —  Myself;  for  never  was  I  intrusive  in  any 
way;  never  have  I  done  violence  to  your  inclinations.  Well, 
in  all  the  assemblies,  whenever  there  has  been  a  discussion 
upon  these  matters,  you  hear  me  always  both  accusing  and 
convicting  these  men,  and  positively  declaring  that  they 
have  taken  money  and  sold  all  the  interests  of  the  state; 
and  none  of  them  hearing  my  statements  ever  contradicted 
them  or  opened  his  mouth  or  showed  himself.  What  can  be 
the  reason  that  the  most  odious  blackguards  in  the  common¬ 
wealth  and  the  loudest  speakers  are  overpowered  by  me,  who 
am  the  timidest  of  men  and  speak  no  louder  than  any  one 
else?  It  is  that  truth  is  strong;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
consciousness  of  having  sold  your  interests  is  weak.  This 
takes  off  from  the  audacity  of  these  men;  this  warps  their 
tongues,  closes  their  mouths,  chokes  and  keeps  them  silent.”  * 

Is  it  not  to  be  regretted  that  an  orator  capable  of 
such  animation  should  have  recourse  to  invective  ? 
What  avails  it  to  taunt  an  enemy  when  one  has  the 
power  to  crush  him  ? 

IV.  The  violence  of  Greek  invective  wounds  us. 
It  touched  the  Athenians  but  lightly.  The  habit  of 
being  witnesses  or  hearers  of  the  greatest  moral  de¬ 
fects  in  a  city  of  reckless  manners  had  deadened  their 
sensibility.  In  certain  matters  they  were  hardened 
and  astonished  at  nothing.  Virulent  pictures  alone 
were  capable  of  moving  them.  The  pamphleteer  was 


*  Embassy ,  §§  188,  206. 


-326 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


obliged  to  strike  hard,  to  transform  his  pen  into  a  hot 
iron.  See  how  Aristophanes  preaches  morals  to  his 
fellow  citizens: 

The  Unjust:  “Young  man,  follow  my  lessons  and  you  can 
satisfy  your  passions,  clance,  laugh,  and  blush  at  nothing. 
If  you  are  caught  in  adultery,  remind  the  husband  of  Ju¬ 
piter’s  example.  Can  you,  a  mere  mortal,  be  stronger  than 
a  god?  The  Just:  And  if  they  arraign  your  pupil,  how  will 
you  prove  that  he  is  not  a  crapulous  debauchee?  The  Unjust: 
And  where  is  the  harm  in  being  crapulous?  The  Just:  Is 
anything  worse  than  such  a  reputation?  The  Unjust:  Well, 
what  will  you  say  if  I  worst  you  on  this  point?  The  Just: 
I  ought  to  hold  my  tongue.  The  Unjust:  Well,  then,  answer 
me,  what  are  our  barristers?  The  Just:  Debauchees.*  The 
Unjust:  Well  said;  and  our  public  orators?  The  Just:  Deb¬ 
auchees.  The  Unjust:  Then  you  perceive  that  you  have  been 
talking  nonsense!  And  the  spectators,  what  are  they,  for  the 
most  part?  Behold  them!  The  Just:  I  behold  them.  The 
Unjust:  Well,  then,  what  do  you  see?  The  Just :  By  the 
gods!  they  are  almost  all  debauchees!  Look  here,  this  one 
I  know  to  be  such,  and  that  one,  and  that  other  man  who 
wears  long  hair.  The  Unjust:  What  have  you  to  say?  The 
Just:  I  am  vanquished.  Debauchees,  in  the  name  of  the 
gods,  receive  my  cloak!  I  pass  into  your  rank's.” 

Æschines  reproached  Demosthenes1  hearers  for  tol¬ 
erating  bold  expressions.  “  lrou  are  iron-clad  (<S 
c Ttdrjpsot)  !  ”  Aristophanes’  moralists  proved  more  clear¬ 
ly  to  what  degree  their  epidermis  was  thick  and  en¬ 
during. 

As  regards  malicious  remarks,  the  ancients  were  gen¬ 
erally  more  patient  than  we.  A  citizen  insulted  Pho- 
cion  while  speaking  in  public.  The  orator  stopped,  and 
when  the  man  had  finished  his  abuse,  imperturbable, 

*  'Et;  evf>u~(>(nzT(ü';. 


( Clouds ,  verse  1080  et  scq.) 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


327 


he  continued:  “I  have  already  spoken  to  you  of  the 
cavalry  and  heavy-armed  troops;  it  remains  for  me  to 
discuss  with  you  the  light  troops.”  During  an  en¬ 
tire  day  an  insolent  hanger-on  insulted  Pericles  in  the 
public  square  without  the  latter  responding  a  single 
word  or  ceasing  to  expound  the  laws.  In  the  evening 
Pericles  quietly  retired  to  his  home,  still  followed  by 
the  insulter,  with  invective  on  his  lips.  Arriving  at  the 
door  of  his  house,  as  it  was  now  night,  he  called  one  of 
his  slaves  and  said  :  “Take  a  light  and  conduct  this  man 
home.”  *  When  Julian  the  Apostate  was  at  Antioch,  a 
city  given  to  frivolity  and  raillery,  he  heard  the  people 
ridiculing  his  austere  manners  and  his  long  philosoph¬ 
ical  heard.  Instead  of  an  edict  to  revenge  the  imperial 
majesty  which  had  been  publicly  insulted,  Julian  re¬ 
sponded  with  the  Misopogon :  It  is  good  for  the  people  to 

*  The  modern  orator  is  not  so  lenient;  lie  immediately  disposes 
of  liis  interrupter,  and  then  continues  his  argument.  “The  brilliant 
but  erratic  orator,  the  late  Thomas  Marshall,  of  Kentucky,  toward 
the  close  of  his  life,  when  unfortunately,  his  oratorical  inspiration 
was  too  often  artificial,  was  making  a  speech  to  a  crowded  audience 
at  Buffalo,  when  he  was  interrupted  by  a  political  opponent,  who, 
pretending  not  to  hear  distinctly,  tried  to  embarrass  him  by  putting 
his  hand  to  his  ear,  and  crying  out,  ‘  Louder!’  Mr.  Marshall  there¬ 
upon  pitched  his  voice  several  times  on  a  higher  and  yet  higher  key, 
but  the  only  effect  on  his  tormentor  was  to  draw  forth  a  still  more 
energetic  cry  of  ‘Louder,  please,  sir,  louder!’  At  last,  being  inter¬ 
rupted  for  the  fourth  time  and  in  the  midst  of  one  of  his  most  thrill¬ 
ing  appeals,  Mr.  Marshall,  indignant  at  the  trick,  as  he  now  dis¬ 
covered  it  to  be.  paused  for  a  moment,  and  fixing  his  eye  first  on  his 
enemy  and  then  on  the  presiding  officer,  said  :  ‘  Mr.  President,  on  the 
last  day,  when  the  angel  Gabriel  shall  have  descended  from  the 
heavens,  and,  placing  one  foot  upon  the  sea  and  the  other  upon  the 
land,  shall  lift  to  his  lips  the  golden  trumpet,  and  proclaim  to  the 
living  and  to  the  resurrected  dead  that  time  shall  be  no  more,  I 
have  no  doubt,  sir,  that  some  infernal  fool  from  Buffalo  will  start  up 
and  cry  out,  ‘  Louder,  please,  sir,  Louder!’”  (Dr.  Mathews,  Oratory 
and  Orators.) 


328 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


have  intellectual  men  as  emperors.  The  Duke  de  Mon- 
tausier  would  have  sent  the  traducers  into  the  river. 
With  this  system  the  rivers  of  Attica  would  have  been 
filled  very  soon.  The  Athenians  were  more  tolerant. 
They  saw  a  tribunal  exercise  in  invective;  they  were 
pleased  with  it  as  with  an  entertainment,  and  were  only 
reasonably  affected  by  it. 

Demosthenes  dwelt  upon  the  poverty  of  JEscliines’ 
family.  This  disparagement  of  the  mean  condition  of 
individuals  did  not  well  agree  with  the  fondness  which 
the  Athenians  had  for  democratic  equality.  Their  law 
ordained  that  any  man  might  be  prosecuted  who  re¬ 
proached  a  citizen,  man  or  woman,  for  pursuing  the 
lower  branches  of  trade.  “Never  did  the  obscurity  of 
his  rank  at  Athens  debar  a  poor  man  from  public  em¬ 
ployment.  No  man  was  reproached  for  the  confession 
of  his  poverty,  but  for  his  indolence  ”  (Thucydides,  ii, 
37).  Aristophanes  verifies  the  same  fact  in  his  own 
manner  when  he  pictures  the  state  in  the  hands  of 
dealers  in  tow,  in  sheep,  in  leather,  and  in  pudding. 
When  he  ridicules  young  Æschines  as  a  school  janitor, 
his  brothers  as  subordinate  scribes  or  painters  of  tam¬ 
bourines,  Demosthenes  feels  that  he  is  coasting  near 
rocks.  “In  the  name  of  Jupiter  and  the  other  gods, 
let  no  man  accuse  me  of  senselessness  !  I  believe  a  man 
is  bereft  of  reason  when  he  ridicules  poverty  and  glories 
that  he  has  been  raised  in  opulence.”  Called  time  and 
again  as  logographer  to  defend  the  lower  classes,  he 
always  took  care  to  speak  of  the  poor  with  sympathy, 
and  to  establish  their  claim  to  compassion.  “Poverty 
reduces  free  men  to  low  and  servile  professions,  which 
ought  to  elicit  commiseration  for  them,  and  not  ruin 
them.  Let  not  poverty  be  civil  death,  judges;  it  is  in 
itself  a  great  evil.”  All  his  oration  Against Eubulides 


329 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 

is  a  touching  plea  in  favor  of  humble  professions  and 
of  the  necessitous.  Why,  then,  is  he  not  inspired  with 
these  sentiments  in  his  diatribes  against  Æschines’ 
parents  ?  First,  it  is  because  the  accuser’s  declamations 
on  Demosthenes’  pretended  bad  fortune  compelled  him 
to  debase  that  of  his  adversary;  and  then,  he  knew  that 
with  all  their  love  for  equality,  the  Athenian  multitude 
did  not  hesitate  to  receive  kindly,  though  it  might  be 
at  their  own  expense,  all  prejudices  against  wealth. 
The  people  of  Capua  did  the  same  thing  at  a  later  day. 
The  plebeians  revolted,  cursed  their  senators,  and 
threatened  to  subject  them  to  punishment.  If  it  is  pro¬ 
posed  to  supply  the  places  of  the  detested  nobles,  the 
crowd  answers  with  scornful  cries  to  the  names  of  ple¬ 
beians  who  are  proposed  to  succeed  them:  This  man  is 
unknown;  that  man’s  a  beggar.*  Far  from  wishing  to 
hear  them  speak,  they  dishonor  them;  and  finally  they 
are  resigned  to  support  the  senators  whom  they  at  first 
contemned. 

Philocleon,  in  the  Wasps,  perceiving  that  he  has  inad¬ 
vertently  acquitted  the  accused,  faints.  This  trait  does 
not  give  us  a  favorable  idea  of  the  clemency  of  Athe¬ 
nian  judges.  Demosthenes,  the  statesman,  said  to  his 
hearers:  “  Be  formidable  in  combat;  in  the  tribunals 
be  humane.”  The  same  orator,  before  the  court,  con¬ 
trasts  the  severity  of  his  ancestors  with  the  negligence 
of  his  contemporaries  in  regard  to  the  greatest  crimi¬ 
nals;  he  considers  their  humanity  naïve  (eùrjüeta')  sim¬ 
plicity.  He  turns  against  Æschines  the  words  of  the 
accuser  of  Timarchus. 

“  Will  you  not  remember  what  he  said  on  his  accusation 
of  Timarchus,  that  there  was  no  good  in  a  commonwealth 

*  Cum  lmmilitatem  sordidamque  inopiam  objicerent.  (Livy,  xxiii.) 

14 


330 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


which  had  no  sinews  to  stretch  against  malefactors,  or  in  a 
government  where  mercy  and  canvassing  had  greater  power 
than  the  laws;  and  that  you  ought  to  have  no  pity  either  for 
the  mother  of  Timarchus,  an  old  woman,  or  for  his  children 
or  any  one  else;  but  consider  this,  that  should  you  abandon 
the  laws  and  constitution,  you  would  find  none  to  have  pity 
on  yourselves.”  * 

The  judges  were  always  too  compassionate  in  the 
eye  of  an  Athenian  accuser.  He  would  protect  their 
hearts  with  triple  bands  of  brass  against  pity.  “To 
death”  was  the  formula  consecrated  at  Athens  in  crimi¬ 
nal  cases,  with  variations  more  or  less  eloquent.  “  Seize 
and  punish  this  pirate  whose  oratorical  cruises  are  deso¬ 
lating  the  commonwealth.”  (Æschines.) 

The  Athenians  did  not  think  the  pamphleteer  alto¬ 
gether  serious;  and  with  good  reason,  for  the  pam¬ 
phleteer  himself  was  not  deluded  as  to  the  import  of 
their  cries  of  death  and  the  issue  of  the  debate.  De¬ 
mosthenes  demanded  Æschines’  head,  a  criminal  head 
(xaxij  xsoaXrj).  Kill  him!  (aTzoxTeivare)  “not  Once,  but 
three  times.”  He  deserves  “capital  punishment.” 
After  having  appealed  so  eagerly  for  blood,  he  becomes 
calm  at  the  close  of  his  oration;  he  sees  and  says  things 
more  coolly.  He  no  longer  speaks  of  actual  punish¬ 
ment,  but  of  civil  death,  metaphorical  death,  which 
merely  deprived  the  condemned  of  his  rights  as  a  citi¬ 
zen  ( deminutio  capitis).  Even  his  last  word  does  not 
prescribe  any  definite  punishment.  He  simply  de¬ 
mands  the  chastisement  of  his  adversary  ( 'Tt/uupvjffayêvouç ). 
These  evasions  can  be  attributed  to  a  particular  motive. 
The  trial  of  the  Embassy  was  not,  properly  speaking, 

*  Demosthenes,  Embassy.  This  passage  is  not  found  in  Æschines’ 
oration.  Did  the  author  suppress  it,  or  did  Demosthenes  attribute  it 
to  him  gratuitously? 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


331 


a  formal  accusation  of  high  treason  (elffayysMa),  but  a 
prosecution  in  rendering  accounts  (  Ouy-rj).  Now,  in 
cases  of  this  character  the  penalty  was  not  determined 
by  law,  but  was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  tribunal 
(àyïov  àr{lu.7]roç).  This,  in  a  measure,  accounts  for  the  in¬ 
decision  of  the  orator  in  requiring  punishment,  and  his 
vague  conclusions.  But  the  dominant  reason  of  the 
contradiction  into  which  he  cunningly  falls  is  his  feel¬ 
ing  of  certainty  that  he  will  not  obtain  the  required 
capital  punishment.  He  knows  the  moral  indifference 
of  his  hearers,  and  he  knows  that  they  are  more  dis¬ 
posed  to  relish  the  malicious  pleasure  of  hearing  out¬ 
rages  lavished  upon  Æschines,  than  to  share  the  patri¬ 
otic  sentiments  of  the  orator  against  him.  In  Æschines 
Demosthenes  prosecuted  a  private  and  public  enemy. 
What  personal  grievance  had  the  Athenians  against 
him  ?  They  did  not  love  their  country  enough  to  hate 
him. 

Tlieocrines’  accuser  observes  the  simulated  enmities 
of  orators  vTho,  after  lacerating  each  other  at  the  trib¬ 
une,  go  and  banquet  in  company  before  the  audience 
and  divide  the  benefits  of  their  concert.  (Aristophanes 
compares  these  to  two  men  sawing  a  log,  one  of  whom 
pushes,  the  other  pulls.)  Such  defenders  do  not  hesi¬ 
tate  to  whiten  or  blacken  one’s  character,  according  to 
circumstances.  Their  client’s  interest,  and  especially 
their  own,  causes  them  to  change  their  language  on  any 
occasion.  Among  the  ancients  this  was  one  of  the 
weak  phases  of  judicial  eloquence.  *  As  a  logographer 

*  Antony,  the  type  of  a  Roman  advocate,  never  wished  to  write 
anything,  for  fear  of  consequences.  He  wished  to  be  able  to  contra¬ 
dict  himself  at  his  pleasure,  and  he  thus  spared  himself  the  recanta¬ 
tions  for  which  Cicero,  the  severe  censurer  and  panegyrist  of  Vatin- 
ius,  of  P.  Sulla,  and  of  Piso,  sought  to  excuse  himself.  (Pro  Cluen- 
tio,  50;  Ad  Familiares ,  i,  9;  ii,  1G;  Pro  P.  Sulla,  3.) 


332 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Demosthenes  could  not  escape  it.  He  exalted  or  pros¬ 
trated  before  liis  feet  the  same  persons,  according  as 
they  were  his  adversaries  or  his  clients.  Although  we 
ought,  in  this  respect,  to  consider  the  customs  of  the 
Athenian  bar  and  the  indulgence  which  held  them  to¬ 
gether,  political  eloquence  never  pretended  to  enjoy  the 
same  tolerance.  The  orator’s  contradictions  are  with¬ 
out  excuse  when  respect  for  public  interests  imposes 
opinions  really  personal,  and  sincere  convictions.  If 
Demosthenes’  eagerness  to  stigmatize  Æscliines  can, 
under  any  condition,  appear  pardonable  in  our  eyes,  it 
is  because  he  is  firm  and  sincere  in  his  hatred.  The 
source  of  his  wrath  is  always  evident;  Demosthenes 
confesses  it  most  frankly:  u  I  abhor  these  men,  because 
I  saw  them  in  the  embassy  to  be  villainous  and  execra¬ 
ble,  and  I  have  been  deprived,  too,  of  my  personal 
distinctions  since,  through  the  corruption  of  these  men, 
your  displeasure  has  fallen  on  the  whole  embassy.”  * 
Æscliines  never  confessed  his  hatred  toward  Demos¬ 
thenes,  because  he  could  not  mention  the  motives 
without  condemning  himself.  He  hated  him  with  a 
spirit  of  vengeance  (for  Demosthenes  had  unmasked 
him),  and  in  consequence  of  jealousy  which  dishonor¬ 
able  men  have  for  those  who  have  pursued  an  honor¬ 
able  course.  His  defamations  disclosed  the  weakness 
of  his  bad  faith.  He  did  not  dare  to  compare  that  man, 
whom  he  represented  as  a  reservoir  of  infamies,  with 
his  contemporaries;  and  for  a  good  reason, — he  knew 
that  he  was  superior  to  them.  He  was,  therefore, 
compelled  to  seek  his  rivals  in  the  past,  whose  eulogy 
never  chagrined  panegyrists  or  hearers.  He  discussed 
with  power  and  dignity  the  lavishness  of  public  re- 


*  Embassy ,  §  228. 


INVECTIVE  IN  G EEEK  ELOQUENCE. 


333 


wards,  an  indiscreet  profusion  which  discouraged  the 
good  without  correcting  the  bad. 

“  Do  you  think,  Athenians,  that  an  athlete,  in  order  to 
win  a  crown  at  the  Panathenæa  or  in  the  other  games,  would 
be  willing  to  enter  a  pugilistic  mêlée,  or  any  other  trying 
contest,  if  it  were  to  be  given  not  to  the  most  worthy,  but 
to  the  most  intriguing?  Not  one  would  be  willing  to  do  it. 
But  because  the  prize  is  rare  and  difficult  to  acquire,  the 
victory  glorious  and  immortal,  he  willingly  exposes  his  body 
to  peril  and  endures  the  severest  toils.  Consider  yourselves, 
then,  the  judges  of  the  lists  in  which  the  contest  is  for  civic 
virtue.  If  you  give  rewards  to  a  small  number,  to  the 
worthiest  and  according  to  the  laws,  many  athletes  will 
contend  for  the  prize  of  virtue.  If  you  gratify  the  first 
ambitious  comer  with  it,  you  will  pervert  the  best  appli¬ 
cants.* 

“  That  you  may  conceive  the  force  of  what  I  here  advance, 
I  must  explain  myself  still  more  clearly.  Which,  think  ye , 
was  the  more  worthy  citizen, — Themistocles,  who  commanded 
your  fleet  when  you  defeated  the  Persian  in  the  sea-fight 
at  Salamis,  or  this  Demosthenes,  who  deserted  his  post? 
Miltiades,  who  conquered  the  barbarians  at  Marathon,  or  this 
man?  The  chiefs  who  led  back  the  people  from  Phylè?f 
Aristides,  surnamed  the  Just,  a  title  quite  different  from  that 
of  Demosthenes?  No;  by  the  powers  of  heaven,  I  deem  the 
names  of  these  heroes  too  noble  to  be  mentioned  in  the  same 
day  with  that  of  this  savage.  And  let  Demosthenes  show, 
when  he  comes  to  his  reply,  if  ever  a  decree  was  made  for 
granting  a  golden  crown  to  them.  Was  then  the  state  un¬ 
grateful?  No;  but  she  thought  highly  of  her  own  dignity. 
And  these  citizens,  who  were  not  thus  honored,  appear  to 

*  There  was  erected  on  the  Agora  a  bronze  statue  of  a  political 
ally  of  Æschines,  Demades,  the  orator  of  the  Macedonians. 

f  From  Phylè,  i.e.,  when  Thrasybulus  had  expelled  the  thirty 
tyrants,  established  by  the  Lacedemonians  in  Athens,  at  the  con¬ 
clusion  of  the  Peloponnesian  war. 


334 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GKEECE, 


have  been  truly  worthy  of  such  a  state;  for  they  imagined 
that  they  were  not  to  be  honored  by  public  records,  but  by 
the  memories  of  those  they  had  obliged;  and  their  honors 
have  there  remained,  from  that  time  down  to  this  day,  in 
characters  indelible  and  immortal.  There  were  citizens  in 
those  days,  who  being  stationed  at  the  river  Strymon,  there 
patiently  endured  a  long  series  of  toils  and  dangers,  and, 
at  length,  gained  a  victory  over  the  Medes.  At  their  return, 
they  petitioned  the  people  for  a  reward;  and  a  reward  was 
conferred  upon  them  (then  deemed  of  great  importance)  by 
erecting  three  Mercuries  of  stone  in  the  usual  portico,  on 
which,  however,  their  names  were  not  inscribed,  lest  this 
might  seem  a  monument  erected  to  the  honor  of  the  com¬ 
manders,  not  to  that  of  the  people.  For  the  truth  of  this  I 
appeal  to  the  inscriptions.  That  on  the  first  statue  was  ex¬ 
pressed  thus: 

“  Great  souls  !  who  fought  near  Strymon’s  rapid  tide  ; 

And  brav’d  the  invader’s  arm,  and  quell’d  his  pride. 

E'ion’s  high  tow’rs  confessed  the  glorious  deed; 

.  And  saw  dire  famine  waste  the  vanquish’d  Mede. 

Such  was  our  vengeance  on  the  barb’rous  host; 

And  such  the  gen’rous  toils  our  heroes  boast. 

“  This  was  the  inscription  on  the  second: 

“This  the  reward  which  grateful  Athens  gives! 

Here  still  the  patriot  and  the  hero  lives! 

Here,  let  the  rising  age  with  rapture  gaze. 

And  emulate  the  glorious  deeds  they  praise. 

“  On  the  third  was  the  inscription  thus: 

“  Menestheus,  hence,  led  forth  his  chosen  train, 
xYnd  pour’d  the  war  o’er  hapless  Ilion’s  plain. 

’Twas  his  (so  speaks  the  bard’s  immortal  lay,) 

To  form  th’  embody’d  host  in  firm  array. 

Such  were  our  sons  —  Nor  yet  shall  Athens  yield 
The  first  bright  honors  of  the  sanguine  field. 

Still,  nurse  of  heroes!  still  the  praise  is  thine, 

Of  evTy  glorious  toil,  of  ev’ry  act  divine.”  * 


*  Afjamst  Ctesipkon ,  §  17?  et  seq. 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


335 


This  eloquent  page  develops  a  great  moral  and 
political  truth,*  but  Æscliines  makes  an  unjust  and 
malevolent  application  of  it.  Demosthenes  was  in  the 
right  when  he  refuted  it  thus: 

“  We  have  heard  his  encomiums  on  the  great  characters  of 
former  times;  and  they  are  worthy  of  them.  Yet  it  is  by  no 
means  just,  Athenians,  to  take  advantage  of  your  predilection 
to  the  deceased,  and  to  draw  the  parallel  between  them  and 
me  who  live  among  you.  Who  knows  not  that  all  men, 
while  they  yet  live,  must  endure  some  share  of  envy,  more  or 
less?  But  the  dead  are  not  hated  even  by  their  enemies. 
And,  if  this  be  the  usual  and  natural  course  of  things,  shall  I 
be  tried,  shall  I  be  judged  by  a  comparison  with  my  prede¬ 
cessors?  No,  Æschines,  this  would  be  neither  just  nor  equita¬ 
ble.  Compare  me  with  yourself,  with  any,  the  very  best,  of 
your  party,  and  our  contemporaries.  Consider,  whether  it 
be  nobler  and  better  for  the  state  to  make  the  benefits  re¬ 
ceived  from  our  ancestors,  great  and  exalted  as  they  are, 
beyond  all  expression  great,  a  pretense  for  treating  present 
benefactors  with  ingratitude  and  contempt;  or  to  grant  a 
due  share  of  honor  and  regard  to  every  man  who,  at  any 
time,  approves  his  attachment  to  the  public.  And  yet,  if  I 
may  hazard  the  assertion,  the  whole  tenor  of  my  conduct 
must  appear,  upon  a  fair  inquiry,  similar  to  that  which  the 
famed  characters  of  old  times  pursued;  and  founded  on  the 
same  principles;  while  you  have  as  exactly  imitated  the  ma¬ 
licious  accusers  of  these  great  men.  For  it  is  well  known 
that,  in  those  times,  men  were  found  to  malign  all  living 
excellence,  and  to  lavish  their  insidious  praises  on  the  dead, 
with  the  same  base  artifice  which  you  have  practiced.  You 

*  “  It  is  a  general  rule  that  great  rewards  in  a  monarchy  and  in  a 
republic  are  a  sign  of  their  decadence,  because  they  prove  that  their 
principles  are  corrupt;  that,  on  the  one  side,  the  sense  of  honor  has 
no  longer  any  force  ;  that,  on  the  other,  the  quality  of  citizenship  is 
weakened.”  ( Esprit  des  Lois.) 


336 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


sajq  then,  that  I  do  not  in  the  least  resemble  those  great 
characters.  And  do  you  resemble  them?  Or  your  brother? 
Do  any  of  the  present  speakers?  I  name  none  among  them. 

I  urge  but  this:  let  the  living,  thou  man  of  candor,  be  com¬ 
pared  with  the  living,  and  with  those  of  the  same  depart¬ 
ment.  Thus  we  judge,  in  every  case,  of  poets,  of  dancers,  of 
wrestlers.  Philamnon  doth  not  depart  from  the  Olympian 
games  uncrowned,  because  he  hath  not  equal  powers  with 
Glaucus,  or  Karistius,  or  any  other  wrestler  of  former  times. 
No;  as  he  approves  himself  superior  to  those  who  enter  the 
lists  with  him,  he  receives  his  crown,  and  is  proclaimed  vic¬ 
tor.  So  do  you  oppose  me  to  the  speakers  of  these  times,  to 
yourself,  to  any,  take  your  most  favorite  character;  still  I 
assert  my  superiority.  At  that  period,  when  the  state  was 
free  to  choose  the  measures  best  approved,  when  we  were  all 
invited  to  engage  in  the  great  contest  of  patriotism,  then  did 
I  display  the  superior  excellence  of  my  counsels,  then  were 
affairs  all  conducted  by  my  decrees,  my  laws,  my  embassies; 
while  not  a  man  of  your  party  ever  appeared,  unless  to  vent 
his  insolence.  But  when  we  had  once  experienced  this  un¬ 
merited  reverse  of  fortune;  when  this  became  the  place  not 
for  patriot  ministers,  but  for  the  slaves  of  power,  for  those 
who  stood  prepared  to  sell  their  country  for  a  bribe,  for 
those  who  could  descend  to  certain*  prostituted  compliments; 
then,  indeed,  were  you  and  your  associates  exalted;  then  did 
you  display  your  magnificence,  your  state,  your  splendor,  ’ 
your  equipage,  while  I  was  depressed,  I  confess  it;  yet  still 
superior  to  you  all,  in  an  affectionate  attachment  to  my 
country  .f 

Indulgence  is  due  to  the  pamphleteer  who  answers 
the  provocation  of  a  pamphlet,  especially  if  he  is  justi¬ 
fied  in  appealing  to  the  righteousness  of  his  cause. 

*  He  alludes  to  the  complimentary  addresses  sent  to  Alexander, 
which  he  insinuates  were  procured  by  Æscliines  and  his  party. 

f  Pro  Corona ,  §  314  et  seq. 


INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 


337 


The  oration  On  the  Crown  unites  the  dignity  of  a 
national  harangue  with  the  ardor  of  a  philippic  against 
.Æschines.  Æschines’  invectives  are  inexcusable.  He 
calumniated  Demosthenes,  and,  by  insulting  him,  lie 
forwarded  a  victory  desired  by  the  Macedonians.* 

*  It  would  be  interesting,  but  foreign  to  our  subject,  to  follow  tlie 
thread  of  invective  at  Rome  under  its  diverse  forms  ;  then  the  fescenine 
poems  up  to  Seneca’s  pamphlet,  the  Apocolokyntosis ,  or  metamorpho¬ 
sis  of  Claudius  Cæsar  into  a  pumpkin.  The  iambic  and  satirical  poets 
would  find  their  proper  place  then,  and  in  the  first  line  the  hendeca- 
syllabi  of  Catullus  {Odes,  29,  42,  54,  57,  93).  Cæsar  replied  to  Cato’s 
Anti-Cœsar  by  the  Anti-Cato.  At  first,  irritated  by  the  verses  of  Catul¬ 
lus  (irascere  iterum  meis  iambis),  the  dictator,  instead  of  essaying  to 
reply  to  them  in  the  same  tone,  responded  to  them  like  an  intelligent 
man,  by  an  invitation  to  dinner.  The  Epodes  of  Horace  are  a  feeble 
echo  of  the  hendecasyllabi.  For  the  aqua-fortis  of  Catullus,  the  poet 
of  Tibur  frequently  substituted  engravings  on  copper-plate.  Fulvia, 
the  wife  of  Marc  Antony,  had  one  cheek  much  larger  than  the  other. 
An  acquaintance  of  the  triumvir,  the  rhetorician  Sextus  Clodius, 
dared  to  comment  on  her  deformity,  which  was,  at  least,  very  impo¬ 
lite.  This  insulting  equivocation,  “  far  from  diminishing  his  favor 
with  Antony,  only  tended  to  augment  it.  Fulvia,  more  jealous  of  her 
husband’s  honor,  pierced  the  tongue  of  the  orator  of  the  Philippic 
with  a  needle,  by  way  of  retaliation. 

The  “delicate  and  gentle”  Virgil  (molle  at  que  facetum)  has  al¬ 
lowed  invective  to  mingle  in  the  pleasing  pictures  of  his  Bucolics. 
Damætas  and  Menalcas  {Third  Bucolic ),  before  engaging  in  a  poetical 
joust,  gallantly  use  the  epithet  “  robbers,”  in  memory  of  the  Carmen 
amœbeum  of  ancient  Latium.  This  persistence  of  invective  ( convicium ) 
in  Latin  literature  justifies  the  words  of  Horace  :  “  Manserunt,  liodieque 
manent  vestigia  ruris  ( Epistles ,  ii,  1,  verse  ICO;  ii,  2).  Roman  urban¬ 
ity  alwa}rs  bordered  on  rusticity.  Cicero  lavished  insults  scarcely 
tolerable  at  the  forum  and  before  the  senate,  where  Cincas  believed  he 
had  seen  an  assembly  of  kings  worthy  to  rule  the  earth,  and  which 
even  the  author  of  the  Third  Philippic  calls  “  the  chiefs  of  the  most 
august  council  of  the  universe.”  In  the  midst  of  these  pamphlets 
charged  with  symmetrical  insults,  but  without  shame,  what  became 
of  the  Roman  dignity  and  the  minute  decorum  of  the  DeOfficiis?  The 
code  of  Roman  manners  regulated  the  voice,  the  walk,  the  gesture, 
the  carriage  of  the  toga,  and  the  least  details  of  external  life.  On  the 
chapter  of  defamatory  insults  it  was  mute. 

15 


CHAPTEE  IX. 

GREEK  ELOQUENCE  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  TRUTH  AND 

MORALITY. 

“ To  xipôoç  ijôb,  7.ÛV  à~o  (pzoôù)7  ecrj:  Success  is  sweet,  even  at 
the  cost  of  falsehoods.”  (Sophocles,  cited  by  Plutarch.) 

“Aaiv-t  (Tocpia  [iziqiu'j  aduluq  rzÀéOzi:  Sincerity  of' talent  magni¬ 
fies  it.”  (Pindar.) 


ITII  the  law  of  the  transformation  of  species  sig- 


*  ▼  nalized  by  science  in  nature,  there  is  another  law 
which  is  even  more  striking,  that  of  the  persistence  of 
the  essential  characteristics  of  genera  and  races.  The 
Gaul  of  our  day  is  in  many  respects  the  Gaul  of  Julius 
Oæsar’s  time.  Likewise  the  Hellenes,  who  were  con¬ 
temporary  with  Philip,  had  preserved  the  original  type 
of  the  Greeks  of  ancient  Troy.  The  culture  of  centuries 
had  mollified  their  character,  but  did  not  efface  it.  One 
of  their  features  is  the  spirit  of  knavery  and  delusive 
fiction.  ‘ 4  The  brave  grandfather  ”  of  Ulysses,  as  Homer 
calls  him,  Antolycus,  surpassed  men  in  the  art  of  rob¬ 
bery  and  perjury.  He  owed  this  eminent  quality,  a 
reward  for  his  pious  sacrifices,  to  Hermes,  the  god  of 
invention  and  eloquence.  Ulysses  was  worthy  of  such 
an  ancestor.  We  know  with  what  skill  the  Ithican  king 
wove  artificial  falsehoods.  UI  hate,”  says  Achilles, 
“as  I  hate  the  gates  of  Hades,  the  man  who  conceals 
one  thought  in  his  heart  and  expresses  another.” 
Ulysses,  to  whom  Achilles  declared  this  sentiment, 
repioduced  elsewhere  a  formula  for  it,  with  an  express¬ 
ive  variation.  UI  hate,  as  I  hate  the  gates  of  Hades, 


338 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


339 


the  man  4  whom  want  itself  can  force  untruths  to 
tell.’”*  He  did  not  absolutely  hate  disguise,  but  the 
wretch  who  lived  on  fiction,  as  the  epopee.  If  the 
beggar  Iros  uttered  an  untruth  for  a  mouthful  of  a  goat, 
Iros  was  wrong.  But  if  the  object  was  to  preserve 
from  the  covetousness  of  another  the  wealth  with  which 
Ulysses  was  laden  on  his  return  from  the  country  of 
the  Pheacians,  falsehoods  became  legitimate.  What 
fertility  in  Ulysses’  fictions  !  Very  skillful  would  be  the 
man  who  could  surpass  him  in  artifices,  even  among 
the  immortals.  Minerva  rendered  this  homage  to  her 
favorite  hero,  and  when  Ulysses  (deceptive  and  defi¬ 
ant)  f  was  bent  on  dissimulation  before  her,  the  goddess 
said  to  him:  “Let  us  cut  short  these  deceptions,  we 
are  both  perfect  masters  of  knavery;  let  us  not  display 
our  dexterity,  but  let  us  speak  frankly.”  J 

A  hero  destined,  as  it  seems,  to  perpetual  suffering, 
like  Hercules,  but  superior  to  the  suffering,  and  forti¬ 
fied  by  a  courage  which  the  waves  of  adversity  can¬ 
not  submerge,  the  Ithican  king  attains  epic  grandeur 
through  these  qualities.  Lie  is  alone,  without  re¬ 
sources,  against  numerous  and  determined  adversaries. 
His  profound  craft,  his  unique  arms,  find  an  excuse  in 
the  necessity  and  in  the  legitimacy  of  his  pursued  ob¬ 
ject, —  regaining  his  property  and  revenging  his  out¬ 
raged  hospitality.  His  falsehoods  are  therefore  nat- 

*  Odyssey ,  xiv,  15G;  cf.  xix,  395;  Iliad ,  ix,  312. 

f  Themistocles  declared  to  Aristides  that  the  allies  did  not  believe 
him  on  his  word,  and  he  entreated  him  to  assure  them,  in  his  place, 
of  the  investment  of  the  Greek  fleet  at  Salamis.  Aristides  himself 
found  the  majority  of  the  Grecian  generals  incredulous.  Later  The¬ 
mistocles  spoke  to  the  Greeks  in  a  more  sincere  tone,  and  was  then 
believed.  (Herodotus,  viii,  80,  81,  110.) 

%  Odyssey,  xiii,  291,  29G,  eldoreç  ap<pa)  xépôsa  (zépôuç,  artifice 
and  gain. 


340 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


lirai.  But  Ulysses  is  a  great  artist.  It  is  not  suf¬ 
ficient  for  him  to  deceive;  he  must  please.  With  the 
poet  he  amuses  himself  with  recitations,  pronounced 
by  turns  to  Minerva,  to  Eumæus,  to  the  applicants, 
displaying  a  fecundity  of  variations,  in  which  appears 
the  desire  to  justify  a  high  reputation  and  to  flatter 
the  most  vivacious  tastes  of  his  hearers.  The  lesson 
which  is  drawn  from  the  bloody  catastrophe  of  the 
Odyssey  is  solemn.  It  seems,  then,  that  not  only  in 
the  great  scenes  of  expiation,  but  also  in  the  diverse 
resolutions  which  prepare  them,  all  ought  to  be  grave. 
The  details  ought  to  participate  in  the  serious  char¬ 
acter  of  the  catastrophe.  If  Homer  had  thus  con¬ 
ceived  his  work,  he  would  have  displayed  a  studied 
art,  a  just  feeling  of  dramatic  fitness  and  harmony  of 
colors.  In  return  he  would  have  been  less  artless 
and  truthful.  Besides  the  terrible  drama  which  he 
develops  before  our  eyes,  the  poet  has  painted  the 
life  and  spirit  of  the  Greek  race  true  to  nature.  By 
a  strange  contradiction  in  the  tragic  and  moral  gran¬ 
deur  of  his  argument,  there  is  apparent,  in  the  fictitious 
narrations  of  his  hero,  an  exuberance  of  imagination, 
which  proves  that  the  rhapsodist  and  Ulysses,  by  de¬ 
lighting  in  these  games,  obey  an  instinct  of  the  race.* 

In  spite  of  time  and  philosophy,  the  Greeks  always 
preserved  certain  impressions  of  native  dispositions. 
In  vain  did  the  dislike  for  deceptiveness  engage  Plato 
to  proscribe  it  under  its  most  innocent  forms,  and  to 
banish  from  his  republic  the  art,  preeminently  imita¬ 
tive,  of  epic  and  dramatic  poetry.  The  criticism  lav¬ 
ished  on  the  hypocrisy  of  Homer  and  JEschylus  rather 
surprised  than  corrected  the  nation,  which  the  hyper- 

*  Cf.,  in  Sophocles’  Philoctetes ,  the  lesson  on  practical  morality 
given  by  Ulysses  to  Neoptolemus,  verse  79  et  seq. 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


341 


bolical  Juvenal  (iii,  100)  afterward  said  was  entirely 
composed  of  comedians.  The  moralists  of  Greece 
spoke  like  Achilles.  Ulysses  remained  the  patron  of 
the  men  of  action.  The  political  stratagems  (man¬ 
œuvres  bordering  on  duplicity)  to  which  Tliemistocles 
had  recourse,  in  order  to  protect  his  own  and  the 
interests  of  Athens,  are  well  known.  Demosthenes 
regretted  that  “the  most  illustrious  man  of  his  age” 
could  not  rebuild  the  walls  of  Athens  by  main  strength 

rather  than  bv  “deceit.”*  The  orators  of  Athens  in 
«/ 

the  practice  of  their  art  never  shared  the  delicate 
scruples  of  the  author  of  the  In  Lejptinem.  If  Greece 
ventured  much  in  politics  and  history,  she  was  no  less 
venturesome  in  eloquence. 

Among  the  methods  of  delusion  practiced  by  the 
Attics,  some  were  nearly  innocent.  Contrary  to  the 
law  which  forbade  them  to  depart  from  the  subject  ( rà 
< l=ay(ô-;ia),  they  aimed  to  distract  the  judge  in  order  to 
arouse  or  baffle  his  attention.  Paraboles,  apologies, 
stories,  comic  traits,  jokes;  nothing  was  neglected  which 
could  amuse  the  judges.  He  who  laughs  is  unarmed. 
“One  could  no  more  derive  advantage  from  an  Atlie- 

*  Against  Leptines.  At  Salamis  lie  pretended  to  Xerxes  to  have 
deserted  the  Hellenic  cause.  He  deceived  the  Great  King  by  secret 
advices,  which  were  apparently  favors,  but  really  perfidies,  and,  what¬ 
ever  might  happen,  beneficial  to  him  who  gave  them.  “This  lan¬ 
guage  wras  inspired  in  Tliemistocles  by  the  desire  to  secure  for  him¬ 
self  the  favor  of  the  Persian,  in  order  that,  if  any  disgrace  was  to 
await  him  on  the  part  of  the  Athenians,  he  could  find  refuge  in  that 
country,  a  fact  which  afterward  happened.”  Herodotus  said  that 
Tliemistocles  was  a  “  wise  man  and  a  man  of  good  counsel.”  (Hero¬ 
dotus,  viii,  109,  110,  75.)  He  applied,  by  anticipation,  the  Lacedae¬ 
monian  apothegms  against  the  Spartans.  “To  deceive  our  enemies 
is  an  action  as  just  and  glorious  as  it  is  pleasing  and  useful.” 
(Agesilaus.)  “To  the  skin  of  the  lion,  which  is  not  sufficient,  let  us 
sew  the  skin  of  the  fox.”  (Lysander.) 


342  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

+ 

nian  by  annoying  liim,  than  from  a  Lacedaemonian  by 
amusing  him.”*  Sometimes  they  used  means  more 
serious  in  appearance,  and  oracles,  even  in  civil  causes, 
came  to  offer  their  appoint  to  the  confirmation.  Polit¬ 
ical  orators  readily  employed  these  divine  arguments, 
pious  frauds  which  were  undoubtedly  often  efficacious, 
since,  success  alone  could  support  their  employment. 
Herodotus  (i,  60),  in  reference  to  the  appearance  of  an 
apocryphal  Minerva  at  Athens,  was  astonished  that  the 
Athenians,  an  intelligent  people,  should  allow  them¬ 
selves  to  be  caught  in  so  coarse  a  snare.  The  snare  of 
oracles  was  often  set  for  them.  The  poet  Aristophanes, 
who  favored  ancient  prejudices,  ridiculed  but  could  not 
eradicate  the  practice. 

Among  human  practices,  rhetoric  taught  that  of  mag¬ 
nifying  or  diminishing  objects  (xsiuxriq).  Such 

an  artifice  was  natural  to  their  desires  and  excusable, 
when  it  was  merely  a  sophism  of  innocent  self-love,  f 
However,  it  is  as  just  to  represent  men  and  things  un¬ 
der  their  different  aspects,  as  it  is  useful  to  know  the 
strong  and  feeble  among  them.  Neither  the  absolute 
nor  the  perfect  are  found  in  this  world.  It  is  the  privi¬ 
lege  of  rhetoric  to  take  possession  of  the  natural  com¬ 
plexity  in  the  human  soul  and  in  truth,  and  to  profit  by 
them.  The  poet  Simonides  J  refused  to  celebrate  the 
victory  of  a  team  of  mules, — it  was  repugnant  to  him 
to  take  the  lyre  for  the  purpose  of  singing  of  half-asses 
( rj'j.io'M)uq ).  Was  this  a  scheme  in  order  to  draw  a  higher 
prize  for  his  verses  ?  The  premium  was  increased;  the 
poet  sang  without  scruples:  “  Hail,  offspring  of  noble 
mares;  hail  to  your  feet,  fleet  as  the  tempest.”  “And 

*  Esprit  des  Lois ,  xix,  7.  fMolièrc,  Misanthrope ,  ii,  5. 

X  Aristotle,  Rhetoric ,  iii,  2  fin. 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


343 


yet,”  remarks  Aristotle,  “  they  were  the  offspring  of 
asses.” 

Each,  according  to*  circumstances,  sees  things  from  a 
certain  standpoint.  The  same  Phoceans  were  severely 
censured  by  JEschines,  hut  kindly  treated  by  Demos¬ 
thenes;  their  sacrilege  became  an  “inequitable  action;” 
the  Caucasus  was  transformed  into  a  mole-hill.  Inno¬ 
cent  Timarchus  was  greatly  to  be  pitied.  “Because  a 
citizen  in  the  bloom  of  life,  distinguished  by  his  figure, 
and  not  foreseeing  the  suspicions  to  which  beauty  wras 
exposed,  conducted  himself  negligently,  Æschines  ac¬ 
cused  him  of  prostitution  !  ”  The  author  of  the  De 
Oratore  (ii,  72)  recollects,  not  without  a  certain  satis¬ 
faction,  his  art  of  exaggerating  or  attenuating  weak  or 
advantageous  parts.  AEschines  and  Demosthenes  prac¬ 
ticed  the  same  method,  but  did  not  acknowledge  it. 
The  three  talents  given  to  the  state  by  Ctesiphon’s 
friend  were  reduced,  in  his  accuser’s  mouth,  to  a  hun¬ 
dred  minæ,  diminished  almost  one-half.  Demosthenes 
was  even  less  reserved.  The  faults  which  constituted 
a  motive  for  Alcibiades’  banishment  wrere  peccadilloes 
compared  with  the  crimes  of  Midias.  Alcibiades  mu¬ 
tilated  the  Hermes,  an  impiety  deserving  severe  punish¬ 
ment;  but  was  there  not  a  great  difference  between 
such  a  mutilation  and  the  inversion  of  all  sacred  things, 
which  was  the  manifest  crime  of  Midias,  who  insulted 
Demosthenes?  Alcibiades  struck  Taureas  in  his  func¬ 
tions  as  choregus;  “  but  it  was  one  choregus  who  struck 
another.”*  Among  colleagues  these  outbursts  of  vi¬ 
vacity  apparently  established  no  precedent.  *  *  *  Who 
proves  too  much  proves  nothing;  indiscreet  art  betrays 
itself,  and  exaggeration  makes  the  judge  distrustful,  as 


*  In  Midiam ,  §  147. 


344 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


the  drinker  distrusts  mixed  wines.*  The  Greeks  ex¬ 
celled  in  all  kinds  of  counterfeiting;  but  here  fraud  is 
transparent  and  denounces  the  falsifier. 

II.  Pascal  believed  in  witnesses  who  suffered  tor¬ 
ture.  It  would  not  always  have  been  prudent  to  believe 
in  witnesses  at  Athens  who  displayed  their  wounds. 
Ulysses,  disguised  as  a  beggar,  completed  his  travesty 
by  covering  himself  with  “disgraceful  wounds.”  Pi- 
sistratus,  who  was  a  great  admirer  of  Homer  as  well 
as  of  Sisyphus’  son,  inflicted  wounds  upon  himself  and 
his  mules  (they  were  unable  to  prevent  it)  and  rushed 
into  the  agora.  He  said  that  he  had  barely  escaped 
being  murdered,  and  asked  the  people  to  give  him  a 
guard  !  The  people  were  deceived  and  granted  him 
a  strong  guard.  Faithful  to  a  tradition  that  had  be¬ 
come  classical,  the  Athenians,  through  cupidity  or 
hatred,  lacerated  themselves  with  their  own  hands. 
One  petitioned  a  physician  to  inflict  gashes  upon  his 
head,  another  slashed  his  own  liead.f  Such  wounds 
furnished  proofs  against  the  adversary. 

Who  thus  disfigures  his  face  to  exact  money  from 
his  antagonist,  or  to  defeat  him,  will  not  hesitate  to 
disfigure  the  truth.  La  grande  Mademoiselle  confessed 
that  she  used  her  imagination  when  her  memory  failed 
her.  The  Attics  were  as  unscrupulous,  and  the  exact 
truth  was  their  least  care.  In  the  Antidosis  and  the 
Panathenaicus  Isocrates  gives  two  contradictory  asser¬ 
tions  on  the  same  subject.  Here  the  Thebans  refused, 
there  they  accorded  burial  to  the  Argives.  We  would 
imagine  the  rhetorician  embarrassed  at  such  a  flagrant 
mistake. 

“  Do  not  imagine  that  I  am  unaware  that  I  make  an  as- 

*  Rhetoric ,  iii,  2  ;  the  actor  Theodoras.  Cf.  Odyssey ,  iv,  277  et  seq. 

t  Against  Bceotus  and  Against  Ctesiphon. 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


345 


sertion  here  contrary  to  what  I  have  elsewhere  manifestly 
written.  I  do  not  think  that  any  one  of  those  who  would 
make  this  comparison  would  be  so  unenlightened  or  so  ma¬ 
levolent  as  not  to  consider  that  I  have  given  proof  of  wisdom 
by  speaking  then  in  such  a  manner,  and  to-day  in  another. 
I  hold  that  what  I  have  just  said  is  well  said  and  to  the 
point/’  (y.àlàjç  y.cà  (TupyepovTwç.)* 

(When  lie  composed  the  Pan athenaicu s  Athens  and 
Thebes,  secular  enemies,  were  united  against  Philip: 
hence  this  retraction  favorable  to  the  useful  allies.) 
Isocrates  made  this  confession  at  the  age  of  ninety- 
seven.  What  w^as  he  awaiting  that  he  might  be  serious  ? 
If  he  should  live  three  ages,  the  Athenian  would  still 
be  frivolous,  and  his  frivolity  would  laugh  at  truth. 

The  hearers  were  even  less  devoted  to  it.  Between 
them  and  the  orator  it  was  always  understood  that  art 
and  success  were  of  prime  importance,  and  that  it  was 
proper  to  accept  the  most  categorical  affirmations  with¬ 
out  questioning  them.  Falsehood  was  a  part  of  the 
right  of  defense.  It  was  the  natural  arm  of  the  accused. 

“You  are  aware  that,  since  the  existence  of  men  and 
trials,  no  criminal  was  ever  condemned  on  his  own  confes¬ 
sion.  Effrontery,  denials  and  falsehoods  are  offered,  pre¬ 
texts  are  forged:  everything  is  done  to  escape  punishment.” 

This  naïve  remark  of  Demosthenes  does  not  merely 
confirm  the  adage,  ‘‘Every  bad  case  is  deniable.” 
It  recalls  the  use  which  Greek  orators  daily  made  of 
all  kinds  of  fiction.  Self  interest  and  rhetoric  con¬ 
spired  to  instruct  them. 

Although  reserving  the  right  of  ethics,  which  admits 
only  just  causes  and  arguments  founded  on  truth, 
Aristotle  does  not  fear  to  enter  into  the  details  of 
rhetorical  rules  for  falsehoods.  lie  aims  to  teach,  not 


*  Antidosis. 


346 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


how  to  use  them,  but  how  to  refute  them.  The  mo¬ 
tive  is  laudable,  and,  we  confess,  the  orator  who  has 
been  trained  to  plead  the  pros  and  cons  by  any  means, 
will  not  on  that  account  necessarily  be  a  dishonest 
man.  We  must,  said  Saint-François  de  Sales,  have 
wealth  uin  our  purse,  not  in  our  heart.”  In  this  con¬ 
dition  wealth  will  not  poison  us  more  than  the  poison 
stored  in  the  laboratory  injures  the  druggist.  In  like 
manner  the  orator  could  preserve  dangerous  receipts 
in  his  mind  in  order  to  baffle  them  when  necessary 
without  admitting  them  to  his  esteem.  Unfortunately 
the  rhetorician,  who  is  so  well  instructed  in  handling 
these  forbidden  arms,  will  be  easily  tempted  to  use 
them.  Flee  falsehoods,  but  here  is  a  receipt  to  falsify 
incognito  and  with  profit.  Is  this  not  exposing  the 
pupil  to  temptation  ?  Is  it  certain  that  he  will  distin¬ 
guish  the  theory  from  the  practice,  as  it  is  necessary 
to  distinguish  in  Aristotle  the  preceptor  speaking  in 
his  own  name  from  the  savant  who  is  wholly  devoted 
to  his  analytical  genius  ? 

Dispassionately  the  philosopher  dissects  the  vices 
of  the  human  mind  and  soul.  He  shows  their  corrup¬ 
tion  without  dreaming  that  he  might  be  accused  of 
corrupting,  and  that  the  purity  of  his  intentions  closes 
his  eyes  against  the  dangers  of  his  work.  “All  is 
good  to  the  good.”  The  corollary  to  the  proposition 
is  equally  true.  How,  neither  Aristotle’s  rhetoric 
nor  his  politics  have  ever  instructed  perfectly  honest 
classes.  On  many  a  page  has  the  Stagirite  expressed 
in  touching  terms  man’s  sympathy  for  man  and  the 
moral  beauty  of  philanthropy.*  That  does  not  pre- 

*  “  Man  lias  all  kindness  toward  man.”  “Whoever  lias  made 
extensive  voyages  can  see  liow  much  man  is  to  man  a  sympathetic 
being  and  friend.”  {To  Nicomachus,  vii,  1;  Rhetoric ,  i,  15;  ii,  21-24.) 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


347 


vent  him  from  stating,  on  two  occasions,  as  argument 
this  precept  worthy  of  Machiavel:  “Insane  is  he  who 
murders  the  father  and  allows  the  children  to  live.” 
Elsewhere  he  gives  the  motives  which  are  to  be  alleged 
for  praising  the  clog  (an  animal  admitted  to  the  heav¬ 
ens  in  the  zodiac),  or  the  mouse  (uoç,  the  radical  of 
mystery).  Aristotle  is  not  more  of  a  sophist  in  this 
passage  than  he  was  a  depraved  moralist  shortly  after¬ 
ward.  He  indicates  the  instruments  suited  to  such  or 
such  a  work  without  stopping  to  consider  it.  He 
makes  an  inventory  without  appraising.  This  is  an 
object  not  of  reproach,  but  of  regret.  Aristotle  clearly 
understood  human  virtue.  “In  general,”  said  he, 
“men  do  wrong  when  they  can.”  The  multitude, 
according  to  him,  is  incapable  of  good  and  education. 
Why  did  not  the  author  of  these  sentences,  which  are 
severe  even  to  injustice,  foresee  the  abuse  which  hu¬ 
man  malice  could  make  of  curious  but  too  disinterested 
analyses  ? 

The  Athenian  bar  justified  the  term  malice  (y.azoopyov)^ 
which  Aristotle  applied  to  judicial  eloquence,  and  the 
want  of  esteem  for  advocates.  The  profession  of  logog- 
raplier  was  necessary  at  Athens.  The  people  would 
have  been  dissatisfied  without  it,  and  yet  they  con¬ 
temned  those  who  were  logographers.  One  of  the 
insults  which  orators  exchanged  was  that  of  logog- 
raplier.  This  discredit  was  due  to  several  causes: 
distrust  of  a  powerful  art,  which  promised  victory 
even  to  bad  causes;  the  character  of  venality  attached 
to  an  institution  which  was  quickly  transformed  into 
handicraft;  the  suspicious  morality  of  their  profes¬ 
sional  or  oratorical  proceedings.  Demosthenes,  when 
speaking  in  his  own  name  or  in  the  name  of  his  clients, 
expressed  himself  very  modestly  on  the  power  of  his 


348 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


eloquence.  He  aimed  to  dissimulate  it,  fearing  lest  lie 
might  awaken  the  distrust  of  the  tribunal.  His  adver¬ 
sary  perceived  this,  and  unmasked  his  false  modesty. 
“  Beware,  judges,  of  Demosthenes’  abilities.  A  con¬ 
summate  magician  (y^ç),  he  represents  things  as  he 
pleases  by  the  aid  of  speech.  His  eloquence  is  the 
scandalous  triumph  of  fascination”  ( Tspazeîa ).*  kEsclii- 
nes,  in  his  turn,  in  the  midst  of  the  ignominious  out¬ 
rages  with  which  he  is  covered,  is  especially  indignant 
at  hearing  his  voice  compared  to  the  song  of  the  Sirens 
(a  remark  more  effective  than  any  other  to  injure  him 
in  the  minds  of  his  hearers).  Is  it  possible  that  a 
logographer,  “molded  of  words,”  and  of  “artificial” 
words,  should  reproach  another  for  knowing  how  to 
use  words  ?  It  is  evident  that  Demosthenes  initiates 
the  youth  in  the  fraudulent  tricks  of  rhetoric,  and 
executes  them  himself  with  the  effrontery  of  a  charla¬ 
tan,  who  laughs  behind  the  scenes  at  the  credulity  of 
his  public.  Returning  to  logic,  let  us  see  how  the 
skillful  man,  in  the  presence  of  his  pupils,  boasts  of 
his  dexterity  in  juggling.  ( Against  Timarchus.) 

The  Athenians  voluntarily  made  use  of  hired  defend¬ 
ers,  but  disavowed  it  and  pronounced  it  illegal.  Isoc¬ 
rates  at  first  followed  the  practices  of  logographers. 
Eventually,  when  frequently  summoned  to  justice  for 
violating  the  law  which  forbade  the  use  of  artifices 
before  the  courts,  he  ceased  to  write  orations  for 
others,  and  confined  himself  to  the  composition  of 
rhetorical  treatises,  f  Thus  the  profession  of  rheto¬ 
rician  was  viewed  with  suspicion,  like  all  smuggling, 

*  He  is  the  most  amusing  manipulator  of  all  our  politicians,  the 
sharpest  of  our  sophists,  the  most  subtile  and  most  insatiable  of  our 
jugglers.  He  is  the  Bosco  of  the  tribunal”  (Timon).  Oh,  eternal 
equity  of  political  wisdom! 

f  Cicero,  Brutus ,  12,  tin. 


TRUTH  A ND  MORALITY. 


349 


and  its  products,  too  often  adulterated  and  sophisti¬ 
cated,  were  greedily  sought  in  secret,  and  publicly 
dishonored. 

Poor  as  their  soil,  the  Greeks  became  soldiers,  logog- 
raphers  or  pirates,  mercenaries  of  the  sword  or  pen. 
Public  opinion  was  more  indulgent  toward  the  pirates 
of  the  sea  than  toward  those  of  the  tribunals.  In  the 
same  speech  (. Against  Aristocrates)  Demosthenes  par¬ 
dons  Charidemus,  who  was  needy  in  his  youth,  for 
having  pillaged  the  allies  of  Athens  on  a  plundering 
expedition,  and  he  stigmatizes  rhetoricians  as  the 
scourge  of  their  country.  He  recalls  the  herald’s 
imprecations  against  the  orator  who  spread  a  snare 
for  the  counsels  of  the  people  or  for  the  lieliasts. 

Neither  human  codes  nor  divine  threats  had  the 
power  to  suppress  an  evil,  whose  extent  was  measured 
by  the  Draconian  laws  of  Plato.  If  an  advocate  were 
convicted  of  chicanery  he  suffered  temporary  suspen¬ 
sion.  In  case  of  a  second  offense,  death.  If  he  were 
guilty  of  cupidity,  death.  The  logograplier  always 
had  to  defend  the  good  cause  gratuitously.*  Tlieo- 

*  Lois ,  livre  11e;  tome  de  la  traduction  de  M.  Cousin.  The  Capi¬ 
tularies  of  802  give  testimony  of  an  unequivocal  distrust  toward 
advocates.  One  would  say  that  Charlemagne  knew  Athens  and  her 
logographers :  “Et  nemo  in  placito  (tribunal)  pro  alio  rationare  usum 
liabeat  defensionem  alterius  injuste,  sive  pro  cupiditate  aliqua,  minus 
rationare  valente  *  *  *  sed  unusquisque  pro  sua  causa  vel  censu 
vel  debito  rationem  reddat,  nisi  aliquis  sit  infirmus  aut  rationis 
nescius:  pro  quibus  Missi  vel  Priores,  qui  in  ipso  placito  sunt,  vel 
judex  qui  causam  hujus  rationis  sciat,  rationatur  complacito”  (Pretz, 
Lois,  tome  i,  p.  92).  Cf.  Mémoires  de  V  Académie  des  Sciences  et  Belles-lettres 
de  Toulouse ,  1878.  De  la  légende  politique  de  Charlemagne  au  dix- 
huitième  siècle  et  de  son  influence  à  V  époque  de  la  Révolution  française,  par 
M.  A.  Duméril.  Napoleon  I  still  remembered,  as  it  seems,  his  illus¬ 
trious  patron.  Memorial  de  Sainte-Hélène,  Nov.  14,  1816,  §  14:  “I 
would  wish  to  establish  a  law  that  neither  solicitors  nor  advocates 
should  be  remunerated,  except  those  who  win  their  cases.  *  *  *  I  am 


350 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


pompus  said  of  Athens  that  she  swarmed  with  Bacchic 
poetasters,  sailors,  pick-pockets,  sycophants,  false 
witnesses  and  lying  ushers.  ‘‘Favor  me  with  your 
testimony,”  became  proverbial  in  Greece.  It  was 
necessary  to  undergo  three  condemnations  as  a  false 
witness  before  incurring  infamy.  Athenian  justice  in 
this  respect  was  surrounded  with  precautions  of  bad 
augury.  The  accuser  in  a  case  of  murder,  before  the 
Areopagus,  took  his  oath  standing,  adorned  with  the 
sacred  ribbons  of  a  ram,  a  hog,  and  a  bull,  which 
had  been  sacrificed  according  to  certain  rites;  he  pro¬ 
nounced  upon  himself,  his  family  and  liis  race,  extra¬ 
ordinary  and  terrible  imprecations,  in  case  he  bore 
false  testimony.  “This  formidable  and  solemn  pre¬ 
paration,”  says  Demosthenes,  “nevertheless  was  not 
sufficient  to  render  him  credible.”  From  this  candid 
observation  we  can  estimate  how  much  confidence  the 
judges  had  in  the  ordinary  oath. 

“Even  when  perjury  could  have  assured  me  the  condem¬ 
nation  of  my  persecutors,  I  would  not  have  purchased  it  at 
such  a  price:  I  have  too  much  respect  for  the  tribunals,  and 
the  protection  of  the  Gods  is  more  precious  to  me  than  all  the 
joys  of  revenge.” 

This  protestation  was  necessary;  thus  the  oratorical 
customs  willed  it,  but  these  were  very  different  from 
the  real  customs. 

A  client  of  Demosthenes,  Chrysippus,  mentions 
two  testimonies  of  Lampis,  one  before  the  tribunal 
and  the  other  before  an  arbiter.  As  this  last  testimony 
injures  his  cause,  he  reverses  it  with  this  distinction: 

convinced  that  my  meaning  is  clear.”  The  Emperor  wished  to  dis¬ 
suade  advocates  from  supporting  bad  causes.  It  would  perhaps  have 
been  more  effective  to  discover  means  by  which  he  might  compel 
judges  never  to  condemn  good  causes. 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


351 


“Judges,  to  render  false  testimony  before  you  and  before 
an  arbiter  is  not  the  same  thing.  In  the  first  case,  in  fact, 
great  wrath  and  vengeance  threaten  the  false  witness;  in  the 
second  it  is  scarcely  a  misdemeanor,-  and  without  danger.” 
( Against  Phormio). 

Callistratus  employs  a  strange  argument  in  liis 
favor:  Olympiodorus  denies  that  I  am  liis  associ¬ 
ate.  To  prove  that  I  am  his  associate,  I  declare 
that  on  a  memorable  occasion  I  favored  him  in  a 
trial  with  false  testimony.  And  thereupon  the  irre¬ 
proachable  plaintiff  recounted  the  falsehoods  of  Olym¬ 
piodorus  and  of  his  witnesses.  Callistratus  not  only 
did  not  contradict  it,  but  confirmed  it  all:  “All  that 
was  concerted  between  us.  Then  our  interests  were 
evidently  common;  we  were  then  associates.  *  *  *” 
And  they  were  certainly  worthy  of  each  other.  What 
a  singular  method  of  pleading  one’s  cause,  and  recom¬ 
mending  oneself  to  the  mercy  of  the  judges! 

The  deliberative  orations,  says  Aristotle,  are  nobler 
(z a'/liu) -/)  than  those  at  the  bar.  Under  these  conditions 
they  were  naturally  superior,  and  yet,  when  they  were 
so,  it  was  due  to  the  elevation  of  subjects  familiar  to 
political  eloquence  rather  than  to  the  purity  of  the 
means  which  the  orators  employed.  The  tribune  con¬ 
stantly  confounded  itself  with  the  bar  and  borrowed 
from  it  its  passions  and  its  most  suspicious  methods  of 
discussion.  If  Demosthenes’  Philippics  were  the  only 
monument  of  his  political  eloquence,  the  orator’s  glory 
would  not  have  raised  him  to  the  height  to  which  his 
debates  with  Æschines  carried  him.  But  his  glory  was 
not  thereby  diminished.  His  harangues,  inspired  solely 
by  patriotism,  are  decidedly  true  and  generous,  and 
worthy  of  receiving  for  an  epigram  the  words  by  which 


352 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Thucydides  characterized  the  statesman.  *  The  rest  of 
his  work  (without  speaking  of  the  logographer)  does 
not  offer  in  the  same  degree  the  alliance  of  artistic  and 
moral  beauty.  In  the  face  of  the  Macedonian,  Demos¬ 
thenes  stands  a  lasting  model  of  an  orator  and  a  citi¬ 
zen.  In  the  face  of  his  rival,  .Æschines,  he  appears 
the  first  of  orators;  but  he  betrays  himself  as  an  Athe¬ 
nian  advocate,  and  bears  the  imprint  of  detestable  cus¬ 
toms  which  had  been  consecrated  by  his  city:  at  all 
times  it  has  been  difficult  not  to  howl  with  the  wolves, 
a  fact  which  Voltaire  felt  and  expressed. 

III.  The  Athenians  were  too  assiduous  in  the  schools 
of  the  sophists  not  to  have  contracted  habits  difficult 
of  eradication.  It  was  said  of  them,  and  thev  almost 
proved  it,  that  by  oratory  they  could  make  things  ap¬ 
pear  what  they  were  not;  all  was  conjecture,  all  was 
possible:  instead  of  convincing  proofs  and  peremptory 
reasonings  they  used  plausible  conjectures  and  specious 
probabilities.  Thus,  the  orator  would  base  his  argu¬ 
ment  on  a  public  rumor  really  spread  or  forged  by  him¬ 
self,  and  on  presumptions  unfavorable  to  his  adversary. 
Why  would  Aristion  not  be  Demosthenes’  secret  emis¬ 
sary  to  Alexander  ?  Calumny  is  certainly  a  strong  forte, 
but  oratory  is  also  very  powerful.  It  is  essential  to 
render  probable  by  skillful  reasoning  that  which  is  least 
true.  Æschines  wishes  to  prove  that  Demosthenes  has 
been  an  accomplice  of  Philocrates,  an  assertion  quite 
incredible  (à-HTTÔrepoç),  which  fact  he  does  not  conceal; 
but  this  is  not  in  his  eyes  a  reason  to  renounce  it.  The 
sophists  urged  the  acceptance  of  the  eulogy  on  Busiris, 

*  II,  60:  To  know  ( [yyaivat ),  to  explain  (ippyj^euffac)  state  interests. 
(r«  déovra);  to  love  his  country  (  (ptAÛ-ufo<; )  to  he  superior  to  wealth 
{yprjp.dra>v  xpziaciiDv}. 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


353 


on  the  dust,  and  on  the  fever.  It  is  not  more  impossi¬ 
ble  to  believe  the  paradoxical  (papâduÇav)  opinion  that 
the  orator  of  the  Philippics  was  the  pensioned  friend 
of  the  Macedonians.  Of  what  use  is  speech,  if  not  to 
illuminate  obscure  things,  to  obscure  luminous  things, 
and  to  give  to  objects  whatsoever  appearance  is  desired  ? 

According  to  the  testimony  of  Quintilian  (ii,  II), 
Cicero  boasted  that  in  the  criminal  trial  of  Cluentius  he 
threw  so  much  dust  in  the  eyes  of  the  judge  that  he 
compelled  him  to  see  things  only  through  his  (Cicero’s) 
eyes.  The  Athenian  orators  often  might  have  been 
equally  confident.  Whoever  has  not  recoiled  before  the 
task  of  supporting  Demosthenes’  philippism,  an  inven¬ 
tion  bordering  upon  folly  (èyyurdrw  gaviaq),  can  dare  all. 

The  Athenians,  moreover,  were  sceptical.  They  had 
their  reasons  for  not  believing  in  the  incorruptible  vir¬ 
tue  of  the  people.  These  dispositions  encouraged  the 
orator  to  undertake  all  and  trust  to  the  moral  indiffer¬ 
ence  and  to  the  credulity  of  the  people;  and  then  the 
audience  of  the  Pnyx  was  not  that  of  the  Areopagus. 
Before  the  latter  Æschines  saw  many  suitors  succumb, 
in  spite  of  their  eloquence  and  the  authority  of  their 
witnesses;  others,  without  witnesses  and  in  spite  of  un¬ 
cultivated  language,  triumphed.  This  venerable  assem¬ 
bly  did  not  express  themselves  on  fine  orations  (Against 
Timarchus)\  before  the  tribunal  of  the  heliasts  oratory 
reigned  supreme.  How,  when  have  scruples  ever 
checked  the  ambition  to  reign  ?  * 

*  “  It  is  often  the  case  in  deplorable  debates  that  the  man  without 
eloquence  (aylwaao'/),  but  of  valiant  heart,  is  overcome  by  forgetful¬ 
ness  while  the  highest  reward  is  offered  to  the  polished  falsifier 
(aiohgj,  </'c ùôec).  The  secret  suffrages  of  the  Greeks  would  give  the 
prize  to  Ulysses,  and  Ajax,  deprived  of  his  shining  armor,  was  en¬ 
gaged  in  a  struggle  with  death.”  (Pindar,  Eighth  Nemœcui.) 

15* 


354 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


The  penalty  of  death  was  enacted  against  every  citi¬ 
zen  who  gained  authority  by  a  false  law.  In  practice, 
the  judge  was  constrained  to  relax  a  rigor  which,  if  faith¬ 
fully  executed,  would  have  quickly  decimated  the  bar 
and  the  tribune.  “Laws  make  the  morals  of  a  state.” 
Demosthenes  might  have  added  that  lawrs  without 
morals  avail  nothing.  With  the  Athenians  they  were 
much  less  the  expression  and  the  fruit  of  character 
than  among  the  moderns,  and  even  on  many  points 
they  harmonized  badly  enough  with  the  morals.  Not¬ 
withstanding  the  threats  of  punishment,  the  texts  of 
laws  and  decrees  were  often  falsified  and  even  forged. 
Æschines  and  Demosthenes  accused  each  other  of 
being  forgers,  and  both  appealed  to  the  public  regis¬ 
ters,  irrefutable  proofs  of  manifest  misdemeanors.  Æs¬ 
chines  particularly  apostrophized  them  with  veneration. 

“  Excellent,  Athenians,—  excellent  is  the  institution  of  the 
public  archives.  Unchangeable,  they  do  not  submit  to  po¬ 
litical  metamorphoses,  but  they  permit  the  people  to  scruti¬ 
nize  at  their  will  those  men  who,  after  a  criminal  adminis¬ 
tration,  suddenly  disguise  themselves  as  honorable  citizens.” 

Is  this  impudent  irony,  or  must  we  admit  that  the 
collection  of  Athenian  laws,  charged  with  contradic¬ 
tory  dispositions,  was  an  arsenal  from  which  every 
man  could  take  such  arms  as  he  needed  ?  Even  this 
explanation  would  not  suffice  to  illuminate  the  flagrant 
contrarieties  of  several  assertions  of  the  two  adver¬ 
saries.  Thus  Demosthenes  boasts  of  his  integrity  in 
the  same  circumstance  in  which,  according  to  Æs¬ 
chines,  he  has  been  accused  {i^rlXêyydrlq)  of  having  pil¬ 
fered  a  squadron  more  powerful  than  that  which  van¬ 
quished  the  Lacedæmonians  at  Naxos.  The  substance 
of  the  offense  was  not,  however,  easily  concealed. 
Demosthenes  reproached  Æschines  for  having  entered 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


355 


against  him  the  suit  of  Otesiplion  a  long  time  after  the 
events,  although  previous  to  that  time  “he  had  never 
accused  him,  never  prosecuted  him.”  .Æseliines  re¬ 
turned  a  direct  contradiction,  and  recalled  different  cir¬ 
cumstances  in  which  he  had  not  only  accused  Demos¬ 
thenes,  but  had  clearly  convicted  him  (< pavspœ ç  è^Uyx°ü) 
of  sacrilege,  corruption  and  theft.*  Whom  are  we  to 
believe  ?  One  of  the  two  is  certainly  an  unpardonable 
falsifier.  Perhaps  they  have  both  in  turn  been  guilty 
of  falsehoods  and  deserve  the  appellation  of  orators  of' 

*  Æseliines  accused  Demosthenes  of  maladministration  in  the 
affairs  of  Euboea  and  of  the  extortion  of  money  from  the  Oritians. 
Demosthenes  made  no  reply  to  these  grievances.  Dissen  gives  a 
weak  explanation  for  his  silence.  Æseliines,  says  he,  added  these 
calumnies  to  his  public  oration.  Demosthenes,  therefore,  was  unable 
to  refute  before  the  people  objections  of  which  he  was  ignorant.  De¬ 
mosthenes  himself  revised  his  orations.  Wli}r  did  he  not  profit  by 
these  revisions  and  destroy  the  grievances  which  had  been  stated 
against  him?  Criticism  on  this  subject  is  reduced  to  conjectural 
appreciations;  however,  we  know  how  considerations  of  state  in 
Greece  were  affected  by  bribes.  At  Artemisinin  the  Eubœans  offered 
Themistocles  thirty  talents  if  he  would  persuade  the  allies  to  remain 
in  the  waters  of  Euboea.  Themistocles  in  his  turn  bribed  the  com- 
mander-in-chief,  the  Spartan  Eurybiades,  with  Jive  talents.  Three 
talents  seduced  Corinthian  Adimantes.  The  fleet  did  not  leave  its 
anchorage  at  Artemisium.  “  Thus  a  special  favor  was  accorded  the 
Eubœans,  and  Themistocles  himself  enjoyed  great  profit  ”  ;  that  is  to 
say,  twenty-two  talenls  on  thirty.  (Herodotus,  viii,  4,  5,  112.)  By 
holding  the  allies  to  their  post,  the  Athenian  general  served  Eubœa, 
entire  Greece  and  himself.  This  method  of  conciliating  public  and 
private  interests  places  politicians  on  slippery  ground.  Mirabeau 
made  this  mistake.  The  political  organization  of  Athens  rendered 
disinterestedness  difficult  to  orators.  They  governed  the  republic 
from  without,  the  administration  from  within,  and  their  functions 
were  not  remunerated.  In  the  negotiation  of  foreign  affairs,  when 
individuals  or  cities  solicited  favors  not  prejudicial  to  the  state,  the 
orators  perhaps  reserved  for  themselves  a  portion  of  the  sums  given. 
This  was  the  reward  they  took  through  a  medium  profitable  to  all 
parties. 


356 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


bad  standing  [prjrwp  -apdarpioq^  which  the  accuser  of 
Timocrates  applied  to  the  falsifiers  of  the  laws. 

The  art  of  falsifying  seems  to  have  been  earnestly 
prosecuted  by  Greek  orators.  They  invented  facts, 
and  then  proofs  of  the  facts.  The  chain  was  logical. 
It  is  not  sufficient  to  edify  an  imposture  ;  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  prop  it  up  firmly.  Truth  is  self-sustaining  ; 
insincerity  never  has  sufficient  support  : 

“  This  man,  an  inimitable  juggler,  incapable  of  speaking 
the  truth,  even  inadvertently,  has  a  method  peculiarly  origi¬ 
nal.  When  an  ordinary  boaster  offers  a  falsehood  he  is  care¬ 
ful  not  to  express  himself  with  clearness  and  precision,  for 
fear  of  being  confused.  If  Demosthenes  derides  truth  like  a 
boasting  impostor,  he  at  first  falsifies  under  oath  and  under 
terrible  imprecations  upon  himself.  Then  he  fearlessly  an¬ 
nounces  that  which  he  knows  is  never  to  happen,  and  even 
calculates  its  epoch.  Persons  whom  he  has  never  seen  he 
cites  by  name.  *  *  *  If  he  wishes  to  state  inventions  as  real, 
he  mentions  the  day  of  their  occurrence.  He  forges  the 
name  of  a  witness  to  his  invention.  A  wonderful  mimic,  he 
dupes  his  hearers  by  imitating  the  language  of  truth.  He  is 
a  knave  doubly  worthy  of  your  intense  hatred,  since  he  slan¬ 
ders  characters  of  known  probity.”* 

*  Embassy ,  §§  153,  99.  “If  thou  hast  begun,  finish;  nunquam 
tentabis,  ut  non  perficias,  —  this  maxim  of  Cardan  was  practiced  by 
the  Athenian  orators,  and  sometimes  against  them.  One  of  the  most 
pathetic  passages  of  the  Pro  Corona  is  that  in  which  the  orator  ap¬ 
peals  to  the  Athenians  on  the  true  character  of  Æschines.  Is  he  the 
guest  or  the  hireling  of  Philip?  (See  above.)  According  to  a  legend 
of  an  Athenian  savor,  the  orator,  in  pronouncing  the  word  p.L(rOwTÔçf 
might  have  intentionally  changed  the  accent  and  said  p.i<rOoToç. 
Meander  concerted  with  Demosthenes  to  play  this  comedy.  He  first 
raised  the  question  of  accent  by  believing  p.taûoj- rôç,  and  all  the  peo¬ 
ple  followed  him.  The  grave  Ulpian  became  the  echo  of  this  anec¬ 
dote,  which  is  sufficiently  refuted  by  the  gravity  of  Demosthenes’ 
character,  but  which  is  valuable  as  a  proof  of  the  levity  of  the  Greek 
mind  in  general. 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


357 


What  are  we  to  think  of  this  accusation  of  shameless 
falsehoods  and  perjuries  \  Phidias,  says  Æschines, 
seems  to  have  made  the  statue  of  Minerva  to  provide 
this  man  with  a  source  of  perjuries  and  profits.  On 
the  comic  stage  the  Athenians  mocked  their  gods  ;  on 
the  tribune  they  treated  them  in  like  manner;  and 
perhaps  public  levity  assured  the  orator  and  the  poet 
equal  impunity.  Æscliines’  imputations  battle  the 
critic.  Ulpian  reproaches  Demosthenes  for  having 
arranged  the  stories  which  he  recounts  to  suit  his 
fancy  ;  for  example,  that  of  Glaucetes  (. Against  Timoc- 
rates).  In  this  case  the  orator  never  fails  to  summon 
public  notoriety  to  the  aid  of  his  inventions.  This  is  a 
method  of  persuading  each  hearer  that  he  should  be 
ashamed  to  consider  or  to  doubt  what  he  imagines  he 
alone  does  not  know.  Demosthenes  discloses  this 
artifice  in  the  speech  Against  Bœotus  :  u  That  of  which 
each  of  you  is  ignorant  believe  not  to  be  known  by 
your  neighbor,  but  demand  a  convincing  proof  of  the 
alleged  fact.”  The  observation  of  this  advice  would 
have  sometimes  embarrassed  the  political  orators,  but 
they  were  acquainted  with  the  levity  of  their  hearers, 
and  knew  that  with  them  they  could  be  at  ease. 

As  there  are  pious  falsehoods,  there  are  oratorical 
falsehoods.  The  Greeks  wrote  treatises  upon  the  art 
of  creating  laughter  (flefA  ysXoioo)\  examples  were  not 
wanting  at  Pome  or  Athens  to  compose  treatises  on 
the  art  of  perverting  the  truth.  Cicero  recommended 
that  the  pleadings  be  sprinkled  with  little  lies:  Est  men- 
dadunculis  adspergendurn.  Sometimes  these  were 
not  little  fictions  for  seasoning,  but  anecdotes  de¬ 
veloped  to  please.  Quintilian,  the  instructor  of  the 
Eoman  advocate,  surpassed  his  master  in  this  respect; 
he  drew  up  the  Code  of  “false  narrations.”  lie  ex- 


358 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


posed  the  theory  of  “colors.”  And  with  what  solici¬ 
tude!  Do  not  forget,  said  he  to  his  pupil,  that  every 
liar  should  have  a  good  memory.  Above  all,  when 
it  is  necessary  to  lie,  do  not  hesitate  to  lie  persistently. 
By  frequently  repeating  the  same  thing  you  will  finally 
render  it  credible,  and  perhaps  in  the  end  you  will 
be  convinced  yourself.”*  Nevertheless  Boman  ur¬ 
banity  never  compared  with  the  audacity  of  Attic 
asteism,  and  nothing  in  Latin  eloquence,  even  the 
most  deliberate,  equaled  the  romantic  episode  of  the 
female  captive  of  Olynthus. 

“  When  Philip  took  Olynthus,  he  celebrated  Olympic 
games,  and  invited  all  kinds  of  artists  to  the  sacrifice  and  the 
festival.  While  he  was  feasting  them  and  crowning  the  con¬ 
querors  he  asked  Satyrüs,  our  comic  actor,  why  he  alone 
preferred  no  request,  whether  it  was1  that  he  had  observed 
in  him  any  meanness  or  discourtesy  toward  himself.  Satyrus, 
they  say,  replied  that  he  wanted  none  of  the  things  which  the 
others  asked,  that  what  he  should  like  to  propose  would  be 
very  easy  for  Philip  to  oblige  him  with,  but  he  was  fearful 

*  Quintilian,  iv,  2;  vi,  3,  imposes  upon  the  master  cf  eloquence 
a  venerable  probity  (sanctitas  docentis),  which  is  difficult  to  recon¬ 
cile  with  his  precepts  on  the  art  of  training  witnesses,  of  defending 
all  professions,  even  that  of  worthy  Mercury  (leno)  ii,  4;  the  author 
of  the  formula  vir  bonus  makes  a  poor  defense  for  this  contradiction 
(xii,  1).  (Cf.  De  Oratore ,  25,  52,  72,  79,  81  ;  59,  54.)  To  aid  his  theories 
Quintilian  cites  different  passages  of  Cicero:  Pro  Roscio ,  21  (Chryso- 
gonus  to  the  audience)  ;  Pro  Cluentio ,  21  (story  of  Cepasius  and  of 
Fabricius):  “In  all  this  there  is  only  one  thing  true,  that  is  that 
Fabricius  quitted  the  tribunal  ”  (Cf.  De  Officiis  ii,  14).  “  It  is  some¬ 
times  the  duty  of  the  defender  to  support  the  plausible  even  against 
truth.  I  would  not  dare  speak  thus,  especially  in  a  philosophical 
work,  if  such  were  not  the  sentiment  of  Panætius,  a  stoic  of  consider¬ 
able  reputation.”  See  {De  Iîepublica,  iii,  4)  the  apology  for  injustice, 
by  Philus.  Carneades  played  this  game  without  considering  it 
dangerous;  Cato  thought  differently.  The  Greeks  were,  above  all, 
men  of  intellect;  the  Romans  were,  before  all,  men  of  government. 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


359 


of  being  refused.  Philip  bade  him  speak  out,  assuring  him 
in  handsome  terms  that  there  was  nothing  he  would  not 
do.  Upon  which,  they  say,  he  declared  that  Apollophanes,  of 
Pydna,  was  his  friend;  that  after  he  had  been  assassinated 
his  relations  in  alarm  secretly  removed  his  daughters,  then 
little  children,  to  Olynthus.  “  They,”  said  he,  “  now  that  the 
city  is  taken,  have  become  prisoners,  and  are  in  your  hands: 
they  are  of  marriageable  age.  Give  me  them,  I  pray  and 
beseech  you.  Yet  I  wish  you  to  hear  and  understand 
what  sort  of  a  present  you  will  give  me,  if  you  do  give  it.  I 
myself  shall  derive  no  profit  from  the  grant;  for  I  shall  give 
them  in  marriage  with  portions,  and  not  suffer  them  to  be 
treated  in  any  manner  unworthy  of  myself  or  their  father.” 
When  the  company  heard  this,  there  was  a  clapping  of  hands 
and  shouts  of  applause  from  all  sides,  so  that  Philip  was 
touched,  and  gave  him  the  girls.  Yet  this  Apollophanes  was 
one  of  the  persons  who  killed  Philip’s  brother,  Alexander. 

“  Now  let  us  contrast  with  this  banquet  of  Satyrus  an¬ 
other  banquet,  which  these  men  held  in  Macedonia;  and  see 
if  it  has  any  likeness  or  resemblance. 

“These  men  were  invited  to  the  house  of  Xenophron,  the 
son  of  Pliædimus,  one  of  the  Thirty,  and  off  they  went.  I 
did  not  go.  When  they  came  to  the  drinking  he  introduced  a 
certain  Olynthian  woman,  good-looking,  and  well-born  also, 
and  modest,  as  the  case  proved.  At  first,  I  believe,  they  only 
made  her  drink  quietly  and  eat  dessert;  so  Iatrocles  told 
me  the  next  day;  but  as  it  went  on,  and  they  became  heated, 
they  ordered  her  to  sit  down  and  sing  a  song.  The  woman 
was  in  a  sad  way;  she  neither  would  do  it,  nor  could;  where¬ 
upon  the  defendant  and  Phrynon  said  it  was  an  insult,  and 
not  to  be  tolerated,  that  a  captive  woman,  one  of  the  accursed 
and  pestilent  Olynthians,  should  give  herself  airs;  and  — 
“  Call  the  boy  ”;  and  — “A  lash  here.”  A  servant  came  with 
a  whip;  and  as  they  were  in  liquor  I  imagine  it  took  but 
little  to  exasperate  them.  Upon  her  saying  something  or 
other,  and  bursting  into  tears,  the  servant  rips  off  her  tunic 


360 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


and  gives  lier  several  cuts  on  the  hack.  The  woman,  mad¬ 
dened  by  the  pain  and  the  whole  treatment,  jumps  up, 
throws  herself  on  the  knees  of  latrocles  and  overturns  the 
table;  and  had  he  not  snatched  her  away,  she  would  have 
perished  by  drunken  violence;  for  the  drunkenness  of  this 
scoundrel  is  terrible.  There  was  a  talk  about  this  female 
in  Arcadia  before  the  Ten  Thousand;  and  Diophantus  made  a 
report  to  you,  which  I  will  compel  him  now  to  give  evidence 
of;  and  there  was  much  talk  in  Thessaly  and  everywhere.”  * 

This  is  a  pathetic  recital,  and  all  its  details  are  ex¬ 
pressive.  Satyrus  had  the  glory  of  obtaining  from 
Philip  the  pardon  of  those  daughters  whose  father  had 
murdered  Philip’s  brother.  The  deputies  are  going  to 
feast  at  the  house  of  one  of  the  Thirty,  the  detested 
oppressors  of  the  city.  AEschines  and  Phrynon  (this 
Phrynon  is  well  known)  play  the  principal  rôles  in  this 
odious  orgy.  On  the  next  day  an  honorable  man,  a 
friend  of  Demosthenes,  gives  him  an  account  of  it. 
This  scandal  was  known  through  all  Greece.  But  above 
all,  what  are  we  to  think  of  an  Athenian  ambassador 
capable  of  dishonoring  his  country  by  such  violences, 
and  of  applauding  the  ruin  of  the  Olynthians  at  a  time 
when  dignity,  devotion  to  friendship  and  hospitality, 
and  most  noble  and  manly  generosity,  are  found  in  a 
comedian  ?  Is  not  the  parallel  overwhelming  to  AEsclii- 
nes  ?  “Notwithstanding  his  guilty  conscience,  this 
polluted  wretch  will  dare  to  look  you  in  the  face,  will 
raise  his  voice  presently  and  talk  about  the  life  he  has 
led.  Ah  me,  this  chokes  me!  ” 

What  is  astonishing  here  is  the  boldness  of  the  nar¬ 
rator.  Between  art  and  falsehood  the  interval  is  slight,  f 

*  Embassy ,  §  192. 

f  Breve  confinium  artis  et  falsi  (Tacitus).  This  contrast  is  ma¬ 
lignant  ( 'xaxôrjOsç  rbriOsrov)  and  taise  (<peudo/x£vo<;).  Hermogenes, 
lisp]  [ xsOodou ,  15  L,  Spengel,  vol.  ii,  p.  439  ;  cf.  ibidem  19,  p.  442. 


TRUTH  AjNTD  MORALITY. 


361 


Tlie  allurement  of  an  injurious  contrast  forced  De¬ 
mosthenes  to  calumny.  Æscliines’  oration  gives  an 
entirely  different  version  of  a  portion  of  this  recital. 
Names  ot  persons  and  facts  are  changed. 

“  You  undoubtedly  recall  these  abominable  rhetorical  arti¬ 
fices  which  Demosthenes  promised  to  teach  his  young  pupils, 
and  which  he  has  used  to-day  against  me.  You  have  seen  him 
shed  tears,  moan  over  Greece,  praise  the  comedian  Satyrus  for 
having,  at  a  banquet,  demanded  of  Philip  some  of  his  f  riends 
who  ivere  prisoners ,  and  ivlio  tv  ere  employed  to  cultivate  the 
vineyards  of  the  prince.  Continuing  his  remarks,  and  raising 
his  sharp  and  criminal  voice  with  a  great  effort,  he  presented 
this  revolting  opposition:  A  man  who  plays  the  part  of  Carion 
and  Xanthias  appears  so  generous  and  magnanimous,  and  I, 
counsellor  of  a  great  commonwealth  !  I,  who  gave  counsel 
to  the  Ten  Thousand  in  Arcadia,  I  have  not  been  able  to  sup¬ 
press  my  insolence.  Excited  with  wine  at  a  feast  which  was 
given  by  Xenodochus ,  one  of  Philip’s  courtiers,  I  dragged  a 
female  captive  by  her  hair,  and  armed  with  a  lash  I  whipped 
her  severely.  If,  then,  you  had  believed  him,  or  if  Aristopha¬ 
nes  had  confirmed  his  falsehoods,  I  would  have  succumbed, 
although  innocent,  under  a  disgraceful  accusation.” 

Consummate  art  is  that  which  is  hidden.  In  the  first 
version  Demosthenes  had  underlined  the  contrast,  in  the 
second  he  let  the  reader  do  it.  In  order  to  strengthen 
the  recital  and  render  it  agreeable,  he  embellished  it 
with  new  colors.  Instead  of  the  laborers  in  Philip’s 
vineyards  he  substituted  the  young  daughters  of  Satyrus’ 
friend.  These  marriageable  ladies  were  introduced  here 
in  order  to  play  the  counterpart  of  the  Olynthian  female 
captive  who  was  so  indignantly  maltreated  by  Æscliines. 

Demosthenes,  attaching  a  great  value  to  his  banquet 
invention,  according  to  Æscliines,  essayed  to  conse- 
16 


362  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GKEECE. 

crate  it  by  tlie  false  testimony  of  a  supposed  relative 
of  the  imaginary  Olynthian. 

“  See  how  he  prepared  this  accusation  long  beforehand. 
One  of  the  foreigners  residing  at  Athens  is  the  Olynthian 
Aristophanes.  He  was  recommended  to  Demosthenes,  whose 
eloquence  he  had  heard  extolled.  By  kind  attentions  and 
seductions  Demosthenes  intended  to  engage  him  to  render 
false  testimony  against  me.  If  he  consented  to  appear  before 
the  judges,  and  to  arouse  their  indignation  by  declaring  that 
I  had  been  drunk,  and  outraged  a  captive  who  was  his  rela¬ 
tive,  Demosthenes  promised  him  five  hundred  drachmas  im¬ 
mediately.  He  would  receive  five  hundred  others  after  the 
evidence.  Aristophanes  replies  (we  have  his  own  word  for 
it)  that  his  exile  and  his  actual  destitution  had  suggested  to 
Demosthenes  the  idea  of  a  well-planned  speculation;  but  he 
is  grossly  mistaken  as  to  his  character.  He  would  do  nothing 
of  the  kind.  To  establish  the  truth  of  what  I  advance,  I  am 
going  to  produce  Aristophanes  himself  as  a  witness.  Call 
Aristophanes  of  Olynthus  to  me  and  read  his  evidence.  Also 
summon  Dercylus,  the  son  of  Autocles  of  Agnontes,  and 
Aristides,  the  son  of  Euphiletus  of  Cephisia.  They  heard  the 
facts  from  his  own  lips,  and  reported  them  to  me.” 

Here  we  see  Demostlienes  confounded  in  liis  turn. 
But  are  these  evidences  reliable  ?  Is  it  certain  that 
the  attempt  at  seduction  ascribed  to  our  orator,  and 
his  inclination  to  perjury,  are  not  real  inventions  of 
AEschines  ?  With  such  oratorical  morals,  every  sup¬ 
position  is  admissible,  every  affirmation  is  disputable. 
The  embarrassment  to  which  these  solemn  contradic¬ 
tions,  these  judicial  protestations,  subject  the  reader 
is  precisely  the  object  of  these  skillful  orators.  Where 
is  the  deceiver  ?  The  judge  does  not  know.  He  hesi¬ 
tates.  His  conscience  is  troubled.  He  pardons,  or 
he  refuses  to  punish.  When  he  has  reached  this  point 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


363 


all  is  consummated.  Athenian  eloquence  is  applauded 
for  having  accomplished  its  work. 

In  this  case,  however,  Demosthenes  seems  to  have 
missed  his  object  by  overreaching  it.  He  strained  the 
springs  of  his  art.  The  instrument  was  broken  in  his 
hands. 

“  On  myself,  said  Æschines,  the  effect  of  the  accusation 
which  I  have  just  heard  created  the  liveliest  fear,  the  strong¬ 
est  indignation,  then  the  greatest  joy  that  I  ever  experienced. 
In  fact,  I  trembled,  and  this  thought  troubles  me  still,  that 
some  among  you  may  be  fascinated  by  insidious  and  per¬ 
fidious  contrasts  and  may  not  requite  me.  I  was  excited  and 
beside  myself  while  Demosthenes  was  accusing  me  of  out¬ 
rages  committed,  under  the  influence  of  wine,  upon  a  freed 
woman,  an  Olynthian;  but  I  rejoiced  when  you  rebuked  him 
for  this  wrong.  I  believe  that  at  this  moment  I  have  re¬ 
ceived  the  recompense  of  a  modest  and  pure  life.” 

The  adage  Se  non  è  vero ,  è  ben  trovato  always  acquits 
the  poet.  The  Athenian  orator  often  benefited  by 
this  favor  before  a  people  who  were  more  anxious  to 
be  pleased  or  flattered  than  instructed.  But  it  be¬ 
hooves  all  to  keep  within  the  bounds  of  moderation. 
According  to  Ulpian,  Eubulus,  at  this  passage  of  De¬ 
mosthenes’  oration,  cried  out  to  the  Athenians:  44  What! 
will  you  permit  him  to  use  such  language!”  The 
judges  then  arose  and  left  the  orator.  This  last  act 
seems  very  doubtful.  The  Athenians  would  have 
given  a  remarkable  proof  of  their  moral  delicacy  if 
they  had  actually  left  the  scene.  But  the  thing  is  not 
probable.  Day  after  day  they  heard  falsehoods  equally 
strong,  and  not  as  well  told.  The  accuser’s  recital 
could  betray  44  the  detestable  sycophant,”  according  to 
Æschines’  expression,  but  did  not  the  same  Æschines 
tremble  when  the  vividness  and  agreeableness  of  this 


364 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

picture  enchanted  (<f>u/ay'ioyi)0évTeç)  and  delighted  the 
hearers  almost  to  conviction?  Undoubtedly  they  were 
contented  to  receive  it  with  an  incredulous  smile,  and 
without  being  so  strongly  indignant.  We  know  they 
were  very  delicate  and  sensitive,  but  not  to  things  of 
pure  morality.*  They  hissed  a  mistake  in  pronuncia¬ 
tion.  They  rose  up  against  a  solecism,  but  in  their 
conduct  they  tolerated  stranger  solecisms.  Their  moral 
sense  emanated  from  their  aesthetic  sense.  They  ad¬ 
mired,  in  the  good,  one  of  the  manifestations  of  the 
beautiful  (zadoxayaOict).  When  they  were  virtuous,  it 
was  because  they  were  preeminently  artists.  Demos¬ 
thenes  knew  well  his  city,  and  what  it  could  support. 
But  what  was  tolerable  to  the  common  public  ought 
not  to  have  been  so  to  Demosthenes. 

An  Athenian  ventured  an  oratorical  falsehood  to 
delude  the  multitude,  as  Aristophanes  risked  a  popular 
joke  to  amuse  the  multitude.  But  a  studied  calumny, 
circumstantiated  and  coldly  reproduced  in  a  written 
oration,  after  careful  revisions  and  deliberate  embel¬ 
lishments, —  and  that,  too,  when  it  had  been  disavowed 
by  the  incredulous  attitude  of  the  tribunal, —  this  con¬ 
tempt  for  truth  passes  all  license.  Demosthenes  had 
some  scruples.  He  suppressed  one  detail  that  was  too 
revolting, — dragged  by  her  hair.  Tie  no  longer  put  the 
whip  in  Æschines’  hands,  but  in  the  hands  of  the  slave  ; 
but  he  preserved  and  envenomed  the  rest.  He  should 
have  known  that  his  fable  would  have  no  more  effect 
upon  his  reader  than  it  made  on  his  hearers,  and  yet 
he  made  a  fair  copy  of  it.  He  persisted  in  his  fiction, 
without  any  denial,  through  exclusive  love  for  the 
art.  This  boldness  approaches  candor.  Demosthenes 

*  Graïs  ingenium,  Gra'is  (ledit  ore  rotundo 
Musa  loqui  (Ad  Phones); 

A  eulogy  very  true  in  itself  and  in  the  restrictive  sense. 


TRUTH  AKD  MORALITY. 


365 


effaced  from  liis  harangues  certain  metaphors  of  line 
taste  upon  which  we,  less  Attic  than  Æscliines,  would 
perhaps  have  passed  condemnation,  and  he  polished 
and  repolislied  calumnies  which  dishonor  their  author. 

IV.  In  Fenelon’s  thirty-third  Dialogue  des  morts 
Demosthenes  makes  an  apology,  in  company  with 
Cicero  : 

“  Eloquence  is  very  good  in  itself.  It  is  only  its  use  that 
can  be  turned  to  evil,  such  as  flattering  the  passions  of  the 
people  and  gratifying  our  own.  And  what  else  do  we  do  in 
our  bitter  declamations  against  our  enemies,  —  I  against 
Midias  or  Æschines,  you  against  Piso,  Vatinius  or  Antonius? 
How  often  have  our  passions  and  our  interests  made  us  offend 
truth  and  justice!  The  true  use  of  eloquence  is  to  place 
truth  in  its  proper  light,  and  to  persuade  others  in  what  is 
truly  useful  to  them;  that  is  to  say,  justice  and  the  other 
virtues.  This  is  the  use  which  Plato  made  of  it,  but  we 
have  imitated  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.” 

Plato  crowned  Homer  with  flowers,  and  excluded 
him  from  his  republic.  He  was  more  rigorous  toward 
orators.  lie  expelled  them  without  crowns.  Their 
art  was  so  debased  at  Athens  that  he  refused  to  grant 
it  even  the  name  of  art.  In  his  eyes  it  was  a  skillful¬ 
ness,  the  fruit  of  practice  and  experience  (s/« zet/na). 
Eloquence  ought  to  be  allied  to  dialectics,  and  teach 
truths.  It  pursues  the  probable.  Its  task  ought  to  be 
to  correct  minds,  to  fortify  them  by  legislation  and 
justice.  Instead  of  offering  to  them  “gymnastics” 
and  salutary  “medicines,”  it  corrupts  them  by  the 
“toilet”  of  sophism,  skillfully  disguised;  by  the 
“kitchen”*  of  flattery  ( Gorgias ). 

This  deceiving  and  poisonous  eloquence  deserves  the 

*  Agoracritus  :  “  I  can  speak  and  cook,  xapuxoicoistv  ”  (Knights). 


366 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


contemptuous  censure  of  the  philosopher,  and  the  in¬ 
sulting  ridicule  of  the  comic  poets.  Does  not  the  art 
of  the  sophists,  thus  understood,  actually  seem  to  pro¬ 
vide  criminals  for  the  tribunals  rather  than  to  honor 
them  ?  Fortunate  would  it  be  for  sophism  if  it  con¬ 
tented  itself  to  measure  how  many  times  a  flea  leaps 
the  width  of  its  foot,  and  to  investigate  the  little  insect.* 
It  has  higher  aims  ;  it  purposes  to  confound  the  good 
and  the  bad,  mine  and  thine .  It  teaches  us  not  to  pay 
our  debts  and  to  pilfer  the  goods  of  another.  There¬ 
fore  the  poet  of  the  Clouds ,  and  the  orators  themselves, 
good  judges  in  their  own  cause,  treated  it  with  no  more 
respect.  They  were  the  first  to  defame  one  another  by 
inserting  in  their  speeches  mutual  maledictions  ;  they 
whispered  to  the  client,  whose  anonymous  advocates 
they  were,  the  blemishes  of  their  art  and  the  revelation 
of  their  dishonest  practices.  The  spectacle  of  the  abuses 

*  Sophism  bears  the  same  relation  to  learning  that  a  pedagogue 
does  to  a  scholar.  The  former  is  narrow  in  every  sense  of  the  word, 
and  is  absorbed  in  trifles;  his  incapacious  mind  must  grapple  wdtli 
small  subjects,  and  from  his  inability  to  comprehend  or  appreciate 
great  themes  he  becomes  an  egotistical  literary  manikin.  The 
sophism  which  measures  the  leap  of  the  flea  recalls  an  illiterate 
country  pedagogue,  whose  learning  was  confined  to  the  rules  of 
arithmetic,  reading  and  writing,  and  to  the  absurd  “  methods  ”  of  his 
imagination,  which  was  otherwise  remarkably  barren.  Uncouth  as  he 
was  unscrupulous,  ungenllemanly  as  he  was  uncultured,  ungrateful 
as  he  was  ungodly,  he  habitually  delivered  himself  of  “  lectures,”  to 
the  mortification  of  his  suffering  constituents,  on  the  great  questions 
of  long  and  short  division,  and  on  the  “  methods  ”  which  he  applied 
in  educating  (  !  )  the  unfortunate  urchins  who  frequented  his  bar¬ 
barian  castle  of  ignorance.  Owing  to  his  minute  knowledge  of  the 
rules  for  forming  the  letters  of  the  alphabet,  which  he  made  one  of 
the  profound  studies  of  his  life,  and  his  ignorance  of  everything 
that  was  ennobling,  he  measured  all  things,  human  and  divine,  by  the 
slopes  and  slants  of  the  letter  A.  But  as  civilization  advances,  this 
kind  of  sophism  recedes.  Fortunately  the  world  to-day  is  not  afflicted 
with  many  such  relics  of  the  Dark  Ages. 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


367 


of  the  art  which  Isocrates  himself  taught  is  perhaps  not 
foreign  to  his  logic:  “We  owe  our  safety  to  the  The¬ 
bans  as  they  owe  theirs  to  us.  *  *  *  If  we  understand 
our  interests,  we  will  pay  each  other  reciprocally  for 
holding  assemblies,  because  that  people  which  holds  an 
assembly  the  oftenest  works  the  most  for  the  advan¬ 
tages  of  the  other.”  Isocrates  is  wrong  in  rendering 
the  institution  of  popular  assemblies  responsible  for 
the  misdeeds  of  speech.  It  is  not  the  reunion  of  the 
nation  in  council  that  compromises  her  safety,  but  the 
disloyalty  of  the  orators  who,  appointed  to  instruct 
her,  deceive  her.  Eloquence  ennobles  or  degrades  the 
orator;  it  strengthens  or  weakens  the  state  according  to 
its  application.  Every  defensive  arm  can  be  turned 
into  a  deadly  instrument  in  unfaithful  hands. 

Æscliines  stigmatized  Timarchus  with  an  authorita¬ 
tive  emphasis  which  is  not  a  skillful  counterfeiting.  In 
this  cause  he  certainly  had  an  advantage  over  his  rival: 
he  accused  an  infamous  man  whom  circumstances  forced 
Demosthenes  to  defend.  The  selection  of  Timarchus 
as  a  future  accuser  of  Æschines  was  imprudent.  Æs- 
cliines  wisely  profited  by  this  mistake  when  he  stated 
the  prejudicial  question  of  the  unworthiness  of  the 
man.  The  friendships  of  orators  during  the  Macedo¬ 
nian  epoch  were  often  more  politic  than  sincere.*  The 
author  of  the  Great  Moral  (ii,  13)  thought  of  this  union 
of  interests  when  he  permitted  the  honorable  man  to 
be  the  friend  of  the  base  man.  “The  base  man,  if 
agreeable,  is  a  friend  so  far  as  he  is  agreeable:  if  he  is 
useful,  he  is  equally  a  friend  so  far  as  he  is  useful.”  In 

*  “Hate  as  if  you  were  some  time  to  love;  love  as  if  you  could 
hate.”  (Against  Aristocrates.)  Hyperides  loved  in  this  manner.  De¬ 
mosthenes  detected  him,  long  before  their  rupture,  preparing  memoirs 
against  the  friend  whom  he  was  afterward  destined  to  accuse  in  the 
case  of  Harpalus. 


368 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


spite  of  these  distinctions,  there  are  classes  whom  it  is 
best  to  love  under  no  condition.  Demosthenes  ought 
to  have  been  more  circumspect  and  should  not  have 
committed  himself  with  Timarchus.  In  still  another 
respect  he  erred.  Athenian  orators  too  often  deserved 
the  suspicion  of  statements  similar  to  that  of  Celsus: 
44  The  advocate’s  reward  is  not  a  good  conscience,  but 
victory.”*  These  failings,  common  to  orators  contem¬ 
porary  with  Demosthenes,  are  especially  lamentable  and 
conspicuous  in  him.  Genius  rules.  In  Demosthenes 
the  man  and  the  polemic  are  therefore  much  inferior  to 
the  orator  of  the  Philippics  and  to  the  citizen.  If  he 
dared  to  compromise  himself  in  this  respect,  without 
considering  that  the  future  would  not  have  the  com¬ 
plaisant  indulgence  of  Athens,  what  liberties  ought  the 
generality  of  harangues  to  take  ?  Demosthenes  was 
the  most  honorable  orator  of  his  time  except  Phocion. 
According  to  this,  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  others  ? 

Quintilian  (xii,  1),  defending  Cato’s  maxim,  44  the 
orator  is  an  honest  man,  skillful  in  speech,”  wishes  to 
answer  this  “unanimous  objection  of  the  public”: 

“  What  then ?  Was  not  Demosthenes  an  orator?  And  yet 
he  is  reputed  to  have  been  a  dishonest  man.  I  feel  that  my 
answer  will  create  an  outcry,  and  demands  oratorical  pre¬ 
cautions.  I  will  therefore  say  at  first  that  Demosthenes  does 
not  appear  to  me  so  reprehensible  in  his  behavior  that  it  is 
necessary  to  believe  all  that  his  enemies  have  accumulated 
against  him,  especially  if  I  consider  his  noble  political  con¬ 
duct  and  his  memorable  end.” 

Justice  here  commands  us  to  separate  the  private 
from  the  public  man  and  to  imitate  the  state,  which 
considers  services  not  virtues. 

*  “Non  bona  conscientia,  sed  victoria  litigantis  est  præmium.” 
(Quintilian.) 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


369 


“  As  to  an  examination  of  his  dignity,  I  will  add  without 
hesitation:  a  state  and  a  private  individual  ought  not  to 
judge  alike,  for  the  points  of  view  are  different.  As  a  pri¬ 
vate  individual,  each  of  us  considers  what  man  is  wrorthy  of 
his  alliance  and  of  his  relations.  Certain  laws  and  opinions 
determine  this.  But  a  city  and  a  people  reward  whoever 
serves  and  protects  them.  They  decide  upon  this  not  by 
birth  and  reputation,  but  by  facts.  What  !  In  distress  we 
will  allow  ourselves  to  be  benefited  by  whoever  offers  him¬ 
self,  and  when  the  service  is  received  we  will  question  our 
benefactor  as  to  his  standing.  Such  an  inquiry  would  not 
be  just.”  * 

Honest  Plutarch,  remarks  that  if  tlie  people  had 
killed  Miltiades  when  he  was  tyrannizing  over  Cherso- 
nesus,  summoned  Cimon  to  justice  for  incest,  ban¬ 
ished  Themistocles  from  Athens  on  account  of  his 
licentious  life,  they  would  have  thereby  lost  the  vic¬ 
tors  of  Marathon,  of  Eurymedon,  and  of  Artemisium, 
where  the  Athenians  laid  the  foundation  of  Hellenic 
independence.  Plutarch  here  wishes  to  establish  that 
God  and  men  are  praiseworthy  for  deferring  the  pun¬ 
ishment  of  the  guilty.  The  political  philosophers  of 
the  lyceum  would  have  drawn  another  conclusion 
from  these  lines.  Bad  acts  are  absolutely  blamable, 
but  the  good  which  a  citizen  does  his  state  ought  to 
eclipse  the  moral  evil  which  the  unvirtuous  man  does 
against  himself.  “  In  the  perfect  republic,”  says  Aris¬ 
totle,  u  civic  virtue  ought  to  appertain  to  all,  since  it 
is  the  indispensable  condition  of  the  perfection  of  the 

*  Against  Leptines.  (Cf.  Thucydides,  ii,  42.)  “  If  any  among  you 
at  any  time  deserves  reproach,  it  is  just  above  all  things  to  place  his 
bravery  on  the  battle-field  and  his  service  to  the  state  in  clear  light. 
The  good  in  him  has  effaced  the  evil,  and  his  public  virtue  has 
served  Athens  more  than  his  individual  weaknesses  have  injured 
her.”  ( Funeral  Oration.) 


370 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


state.  But  it  is  not  possible  that  all  in  the  state  possess 
the  virtue  of  a  private  man.”  The  unity  of  virtue  is 
as  impossible  as  the  unity  of  employment  in  choruses, 
where  it  is  very  necessary  that  there  should  be  fig¬ 
urants,  and  not  exclusively  coryphei.  When  civic 
and  private  virtue  can  be  found  united  in  the  same 
person,  we  have  a  magistrate  both  able  and  virtuous. 
But  if  they  are  not  united,  it  is  fitting  to  esteem  that  one 
which  is  more  advantageous  to  state  interests;  for  the 
qualities  and  experience  of  a  commander  are  preferable 
to  probity,  because  probity  is  more  easily  found  than 
military  talent.  It  would  be  fitting  to  choose  other¬ 
wise  if  the  object  were  to  select  a  guardian  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  treasury.  u  The  most  important  object  is  (we  have 
frequently  repeated  it)  to  support  those  citizens  who 
wish  to  preserve  the  government  against  those  who 
wish  its  downfall.”  “The  state  can  and  ought  to  em¬ 
ploy,  and  even  esteem,  a  bad  man  if  he  is  useful.”  A 
good  knife  is  one  that  cuts  well. 

Demosthenes  was  less  honorable  than  Phocion:  who 
will  dare  to  say  Phocion  was  a  better  citizen  than 
Demosthenes  ?  Demosthenes  served  Athens  and  the 
sacred  cause  of  national  dignity  better  than  lie.*  Af¬ 
fected  by  the  contagion  of  his  time,  he  bears  its 
lamentable  traces.  But  before  the  foreigner  he  is 
always  mindful  of  himself.  He  is  ever  high  and  pure 
in  the  accomplishment  of  civic  duty,  and  in  the  sacred 
struggle  against  the  invader.  Up)on  the  whole,  this 
Demosthenes  is  the  true  Demosthenes  whom  posterity 

*  A  success  of  the  Athenian  army  was  announced  to  Phocion  : 
“When  then  will  we  cease  to  conquer?”  His  maxim  was,  “Be  the 
strongest  or  the  friend  of  the  strongest.”  Phocion  could  not  tight  at 
Chæronea.  He  was  at  that  time  commanding  the  fleet  at  the  Helles¬ 
pont, —  a  lamentable  mishap. 


TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 


371 


especially  knows  and  justly  admires.  Preeminent 
virtue  and  justice  consist  in  accomplishing  good  for 
our  fellow-men: 

“  Many  classes  can  be  virtuous  in  that  which  regards 
themselves  individually,  who  are  incapable  of  virtue  in  that 
which  concerns  others.  *  *  *  The  man  nearest  perfection 
is  not  that  man  who  uses  his  virtue  for  himself,  but  that  one 
who  uses  it  for  another,  which  is  always  a  difficult  task.”  * 

Much  will  be  pardoned  in  Demosthenes  because  he 
passionately  loved  his  country,  f  Before  the  triumph 
of  Antony  and  Octavius  caused  Brutus,  another  martyr 
of  liberty,  to  doubt  virtue,  he  had  placed  the  bust  of 
Demosthenes  among  the  statues  of  his  ancestors.  X 

*  Nicomachean  Ethics ,  v,  1,  §  15. 

f  Virtue,  in  a  republic,  is  a  very  simple  thing:  it  is  love  for  the 
republic.  *  *  *  This  virtue  can  be  defined  :  love  for  the  laws  and  for 
the  country.  This  love,  demanding  a  continual  preference  of  public 
to  private  interest,  gives  all  the  individual  virtues;  they  constitute 
this  preference.  This  love  is  singularly  affected  in  democracies.  *  *  * 
I  have  not  said  this  to  diminish  in  the  least  degree  the  infinite  dis¬ 
tance  which  there  is  between  vices  and  virtues;  God  forbid  it.  I 
have  only  wished  to  have  it  understood  that  all  political  vices  are  not 
moral  vices,  and  all  moral  vices  are  not  political  vices  ( Esprit  des 
Lois ,  v,  2;  iv,  5;  xix,  11). 

%  Cicero,  Be  Claris  Oratoribus,  31. 


CHAPTER  X. 


I.  DEMOSTHENES  AS  A  MORALIST.  II.  RELATIONS  OF 
JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS.  III.  RELIGIOUS  SENTI¬ 
MENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES. 

I.  DEMOSTHENES  AS  A  MORALIST. 

u  (Pavrj(7£TO.L  raùra  oiïrtuç  où  (j.ôvov  èv  roiç  vo/j.{/j.otç ,  àXXà  /.ai  g 
(füGtq  0.0X7]  rocç  àypd<poiç  v6fj.otç  xàï  toJç  avOptoTzCot^  rjOsoc 
ôiœp'x.z:  These  maxims  are  not  only  in  laws;  they  are  in  the  number 
of  unwritten  laws  which  nature  has  engraved  upon  the  heart  of 
man.”  ( Oration  on  the  Crown.) 


SEVERAL  ancient  testimonies,  of  very  questionable 
validity  make  Demosthenes  a  disciple  of  Plato. 
This  tradition  of  the  Platonic  education  of  our  orator 
appears  to  have  been  born  in  the  schools  of  phi¬ 
losophy  which  were  desirous  of  claiming  such  a  dis¬ 
ciple.  Hine  cities  contended  for  Homer’s  birth:  it 
is  not  astonishing  to  find  philosophy  and  rhetoric 
contending  for  the  glory  of  having  inspired  the  author 
of  the  apostrophe  to  the  heroes  of  Marathon.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  Cicero,  Demosthenes  was  an  u assiduous  hearer” 
of  the  chief  of  the  Academy.*  Cicero  believed  that 
he  had  found  the  proof  of  this  in  his  letters.  It  is 
true,  the  letters  attributed  to  Demosthenes,  and  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  been  written  (except  the  fifth)  during 
his  exile,  express  noble  and  generous  thoughts;  as  a 
whole,  they  do  not  appear  unworthy  of  a  pupil  of 
Plato.  But  any  one  of  these  pages  contains  passages 

*  Brutus,  31;  Orator ,  4;  Dialogue  of  the  Orators ,  32;  Plutarch,  Life 
of  Demosthenes ,  5. 

372 


f 


DEMOSTHENES  AS  A  MORALIST. 


373 


which,  in  the  mouth  of  Demosthenes,  would  furnish 
his  own  condemnation.  The  author  exhorts,  in  one 
of  his  letters,  ITeracleodorus  to  lend  his  aid  to  the 
accused  Epitimus,  instead  of  prosecuting  him  with 
animosity: 

“  I  know  that  you  have  been  trained  in  a  school  which 
is  decidedly  foreign  to  cupidity,  and  to  the  dishonest  practices 
of  evil  passions,  and  producing  all  for  the  common  good  and 
for  supreme  justice.  *  *  *  A  student  of  Plato,  I  call  the 
gods  to  witness,  who  would  dare  to  lie  and  prove  himself 
dishonorable  toward  a  single  man,  would  be  very  culpable.” 

The  philosopher  of  the  Gorgias  would  not  have  dis¬ 
owned  the  orator  of  the  Philippics  or  even  the  orator 
of  the  oration  On  the  Crown  ;  but  he  would  un¬ 
doubtedly  have  sent  back  to  the  laboratories  of  the 
sophists  the  polemic  and  logographer.  If  Demos¬ 
thenes  was  the  disciple  of  Plato,  it  was  only  under 
certain  circumstances,  as  Voltaire  was  the  student  of 
the  Jesuit  fathers. 

If  Demosthenes  did  not  follow  the  lessons  of  the 
Academy,  he  profited  by  the  reading  of  Plato’s  dia¬ 
logues.  This  is  evident  (we  quote  from  Cicero)  in  the 
majesty  of  his  style  (j grandidate  verborum).  Quintil¬ 
ian  (xii,  10),  refuting  indiscreet  orators,  in  whose  eyes 
coldness  and  dryness  are  claims  to  the  reputation  of 
Attic,  asserts,  with  good  reason,  that  neither  Lysias  nor 
Andocides  instructed  Demosthenes  in  the  pathetic  sub¬ 
limity  of  his  harangues.  Demosthenes,  the  disciple  of 
Isæus,  surpasses  his  master,  and  draws  his  inspirations 
from  a  warmer  and  deeper  source.  Pericles  received 
his  best-tempered  arms  from  the  hands  of  philosophy. 
In  like  manner  Demosthenes  is  indebted  to  the  study 
of  Plato’s  works  for  a  general  culture  which  has  left 
its  manifest  imprint  on  the  dutiful  orator.  In  this 


374 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


measure  we  can  imagine  him  a  disciple  of  Plato.  To 
go  beyond  this  would  be  an  exaggeration,  which  would 
very  soon  be  refuted  by  several  of  his  orations.45'  The 
political  philosophers  of  the  new  Academy  and  of  the 
Lyceum, — these,  in  general,  were  his  masters,  and  he 
heard  them  most  often,  f  Cicero  ascribes  the  credit  of 
much  of  his  eloquence  to  philosophy,  but  to  what  phi¬ 
losophy  ?  To  the  sceptical  Academy,  the  volatile  mis¬ 
tress^;  of  contradictory  controversies.  Is  this  what 
makes  a  true  philosopher  ?  Demosthenes  gave  no 
more  attention  to  philosophy  than  did  Cicero,  but,  like 
Cicero,  lie  gained  much  from  his  perusal  of  philosoph¬ 
ical  writings. 

The  assiduous  study  of  Thucydides,  the  traditional 
customs  of  Greek  eloquence,  the  gravity  of  the  circum¬ 
stances,  and  that  of  Demosthenes’  character,  contrib¬ 
uted,  as  much  as  the  lessons  of  philosophy,  to  imprint 
a  moral  gravity  of  powerful  effect  on  his  eloquence. 

“  Why,  Leptines,  do  you  not  think  of  the  future?  It  is, 

*  “  There  was  need  of  a  Plato  to  mould  Demosthenes,  in  order  that 
the  greatest  of  orators  might  do  homage  with  all  his  reputation  to  the 
greatest  of  philosophers.”  (Daguesseau.)  This  judgment  is  a  shock¬ 
ing  exaggeration.  ( Histoire  de  Dêmosthène ,  par  M.  A.  Boullée.) 

f  “  If  you  desire  to  follow  the  traces  of  ancient  Pericles  or  of  De¬ 
mosthenes,  *  *  *  if  your  heart  is  stirred  at  the  sight  of  this  splendid 
model,  of  this  sublime  image  of  the  orator,  you  must  embrace,  in  all 
its  extensiveness,  the  doctrine  of  Carneades  and  of  Aristotle.  *  *  * 
If  a  man  is  found  who  can,  according  to  the  method  of  Aristotle 
sustain  the  pros  and  cons  on  all  kinds  of  subjects;  if  he  is  able,  after 
the  manner  of  Arcesilaus  and  of  Carneades,  to  combat  all  kinds  of 
propositions;  and  if  to  this  method  he  joins  the  knowledge  of  ora¬ 
torical  art,  the  customs  and  exercise  of  language,  there  then  is  a  true, 
a  perfect,  a  finished  orator.”  [De  Oratore,  iii,  18,  19,  21.) 

X  Orator,  3;  Ad  Atticum ,  iii,  25:  “  O  Academian  volaticam  *  *  * 
modo  hue,  modo  illuc.”  All  philosophical  schools  are  not  equally 
adapted  to  form  an  orator:  Orator ,  xix,  4;  De  Oratore ,  iii,  17 ;  Ad  At- 
ticum ,  ii,  IG;  De  Finibus ,  iv,  3. 


DEMOSTHENES  AS  A  MORALIST. 


375 


by  Jupiter,  because  we  are  far  from  the  prevision  of  such  sad 
conjunctures!  Would  that  we  could  always  be  far  from  them, 
Athenians!  Still,  we  are  men;  let  us  beware  of  words  and 
laws  which  might  awaken  Nemesis.  Let  us  hope  for  happi¬ 
ness.  Let  us  demand  it  of  the  immortal  Gods;  but  let  us  also 
reflect  on  the  common  law  of  humanity.  Lacedaemon  never 
expected  to  see  herself  in  her  present  condition  (her  defeat  at 
Leuctra  laid  her  at  the  feet  of  Thebes);  and  Syracuse,  that 
ancient  democracy  which  submitted  Carthage  to  tribute, 
which  ruled  over  all  the  neighboring  people,  which  van¬ 
quished  the  fleets  of  Athens, —  she  did  not  foresee  that  a 
single  scribe, — a  valet,  it  is  said, — would  impose  a  yoke  of  tyr¬ 
anny  (Dionysius  the  elder)  upon  her.  Did  the  Dionysius  of 
our  day  imagine  that  with  one  bark  and  a  handful  of  soldiers 
Dion  would  rout  the  master  of  so  many  triremes,  so  many 
foreigners  and  cities  ?  Yes,  truly  the  future  is  screened  from 
all  men;  little  causes  effect  great  revolutions.  We  must, 
therefore,  govern  ourselves’ in  prosperity,  and  provide  against 
the  future.” 

The  result  was  to  confirm  the  moral  affections  of  the 
young  orator,  and  even  far  surpass  them.  Could  he,  in 
355,  foresee  that  a  man  from  Pella  would  destroy  Hel¬ 
lenic  independence,  that  a  Macedonian  youth,  in  less 
than  eight  years,  would  subjugate  the  entire  Orient  ? 

Later,  when  Demosthenes  witnessed  the  reverses 
which  gradually  prepared  the  ruin  of  the  city  of  Mi¬ 
nerva,  he  armed  himself  against  the  public  decay  by 
means  of  the  very  disasters  which  caused  it.  He  ex¬ 
horted  Athens  to  derive  her  safety  from  her  adversary. 

“You  have  received  a  faithful  report,  Athenians,  but  you 
ought  not  to  be  thrown  into  consternation  by  the  misfortune. 
Consider  that  discouragement  is  neither  advantageous  to  the 
present  crisis  nor  worthy  of  you;  but  it  is  worthy  of  your 
glory  to  consider  that  your  duty  is  to  repair  the  evil.  If  the 
noble  conception  which  you  have  of  Athens  is  not  a  delusion, 


376 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


you  ought  to  show  yourselves  superior  to  other  men  in  the 
midst  of  reverses.  My  sincerest  wish  would  have  been  that  this 
fate  would  not  have  befallen  our  city,  and  that  fortune  would 
have  spared  it  all  disgrace.  But  if  this  crisis  was  to  be, —  if 
destiny  had  resolved  upon  it, —  I  esteem  it  advantageous  that 
things  have  been  accomplished  as  they  are.  Indeed,  For¬ 
tune  has  sudden  changes.  It  easily  passes  from  one  field  to 
another.  Defeats,  the  result  of  cowardice,  are  only  constant 
in  their  stability.  Believe  me,  even  your  conquerors  are  not 
ignorant  that,  if  it  is  your  wish, —  if  this  check  arouses 
you, —  it  is  not  yet  possible  to  decide  whether  the  present 
event  is  fortunate  or  unfortunate  for  them.  If  they  are 
elated  over  their  success,  their  victory  can  very  soon  be 
turned  to  your  advantage;  for  the  more  confident  their  con¬ 
tempt,  the  more  rapid  their  fall.  *  *  *  PerhajDS  none  of 
you,  Athenians,  have  inquired  why  adversity  is  a  better 
counsellor  than  prosperity.  The  sole  reason  is  that  the  for¬ 
tunate  man  fears  nothing.  He  does  not  believe  that  he  is 
threatened  by  those  evils  which  are  reported  to  him.  On 
the  contrary,  misfortune  places  before  our  eyes  the  faults  of 
which  it  is  the  fruit,  and  makes  us  wise  and  circumspect  for 
the  future.”* 

In  tlie  trial  of  the  Crown  JEschines  shortens  the 
debate;  Demosthenes  constantly  enlarges  it.  He  does 
not  speak  under  the  inspiration  of  disavowed  personal 
passions,  but  in  the  name  of  moral  dignity.  The  stoic 
Panætius  congratulated  him  because  he  established  the 
greater  part  of  his  harangues  on  this  principle,  that 
u  the  beautiful  alone  is  eligible  ”  and  preferable  in 
itself.  In  fact,  Demosthenes  always  dared  to  present 
the  image  of  an  austere  and  laborious  virtue  to  the 
Athenians.  ITe  exacted  of  them  that  they  should  pre¬ 
fer  the  honorable ,  although  difficult  and  even  unsuc- 

*  Exordia,  39  and  43;  Didot,  pp.  7G2,  764.  This  thought  is  .devel¬ 
oped  by  Bossuet:  Oraison  funèbre  de  la  Reine  d'Angleterre. 


DEMOSTHENES  AS  A  MORALIST. 


377 


cessful,  to  the  useful ,  although  agreeable,  but  dishon¬ 
orable.  A  good  cause  should  be  supported,  though 
it  be  condemned  to  perish.  The  most  imperious  ne¬ 
cessity  is  that  of  honor. 

“  Suppose  some  god  would  be  your  surety, —  for  certainly 
no  mortal  could  guarantee  such  an  event, —  that,  notwith¬ 
standing  jmu  kept  quiet  and  abandoned  everything,  Philip 
would  not  attack  you  at  last;  yet,  by  Jupiter  and  all  the 
gods,  it  were  disagreeable  and  unworthy  of  yourselves,  of 
the  character  of  Athens  and  the  deeds  of  your  ancestors,  for 
the  sake  of  selfish  ease,  to  abandon  the  rest  of  Greece  to 
servitude.  For  my  own  part,  I  would  rather  die  than  have 
given  such  counsel;  though,  if  another  man  advises  it  and 
you  are  satisfied,  well  and  good.  Make  no  resistance;  aban¬ 
don  all.  If,  however,  no  man  hold  this  opinion;  if,  on  the 
contrary,  we  all  foresee  that  the  more  we  let  Philip  conquer, 
the  more  ruthless  and  powerful  an  enemy  we  shall  find  him, 
what  subterfuge  remains?  what  excuse  for  delay?  Or  when, 
0  Athenians,  shall  we  be  willing  to  perform  our  duty?  Per- 
adventure  when  there  is  some  necessity.  But  what  may  be 
called  the  necessity  of  freemen  is  not  only  come,  but  past 
long  ago,  and  surely  you  must  deprecate  that  of  slaves. 
What  is  the  difference?  To  a  freeman,  the  greatest  neces¬ 
sity  is  shame  for  his%  proceedings.  I  know  not  what  greater 
you  can  suggest.  To  a  slave,  stripes  and  bodily  chastise¬ 
ment.  Abominable  things!  Too  shocking  to  mention  !”  * 

“  Raise  your  hearts!”  was  the  cry  of  the  patriot 
and  the  motto  of  the  orator. 

Like  Aristotle,  Demosthenes  knew  the  weaknesses  of 
the  Athenian  multitude  ;  but,  while  the  philosopher 
condemned  them  without  appeal,  the  orator  labored 
and  contended  with  them. 

“  As  the  mob  lives  solely  on  passions,  it  pursues  only 
pleasures  which  are  agreeable  to  it,  and  the  means  to  procure 

*  On  the  Chersonesus,  §  49  ;  cf.  §  10. 

16* 


378 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


them.  It  is  anxious  to  shun  all  pains  and  displeasures.  But 
of  the  beautiful,  of  true  pleasure,  it  forms  not  even  an  idea, 
because  it  has  never  tasted  them.  What  orations,  I  ask, 
what  reasoning,  could  correct  these  gross  natures?  It  is  not 
possible,  or  at  least  it  is  not  easy ,  to  change  by  the  sole  power 
of  speech  those  habits  which  have  so  long  been  sanctioned  by 
the  passions.”* 

Toward  the  end  of  his  career  Demosthenes  is  said  to 
have  experienced  the  discouragement  which  the  rigor¬ 
ous  sentence  of  the  moralist  was  calculated  to  inspire. 
But  this  discouragement  his  entire  political  life  had 
previously  disavowed.  The  difficult  work  of  which 
Aristotle  speaks  Demosthenes  accomplished.  By  con¬ 
stantly  speaking  to  the  degenerate  Athenians  of  their 
honor,  he  made  them  regain  it.  By  pushing  his  fellow- 
citizens  into  the  rough  paths  of  duty,  he  sowed  briers 
along  his  own  pathway,  and  approached  an  almost 
certain  precipice.  The  man  affronting  public  affairs, 
in  the  hope  of  correcting  his  fellow-men,  throws  him¬ 
self  as  food  to  u  wild  beasts.”  u  He  will  perish  before 
doing  any  service  for  the  commonwealth,  useless  to 
others  and  to  himself. Demosthenes  braved  Plato’s 
prophecy,  and  almost  belied  it.  If  he  perished  at  the 
task,  Athens  owed  to  him  the  safety  of  her  honor. 
This  devotion  was  the  constant  inspiration  of  his  whole 
life.  In  this  respect  he  never  flinched  nor  varied. 
On  other  points  his  sentiments  did  not  always  have 
the  same  firmness.  In  him  the  politician  was  some¬ 
times  substituted  for  the  moralist  and  effaced  it. 


*  Nicomacliean  Ethics ,  x,  10,  §  4. 


f  Plato,  Republic ,  vi. 


RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS.  379 


II. - RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS. 


“'//  dt‘/.cuo<ruv7j  *  *  *  ovO'  ïtr-epoç  ouO ”  it ooq  ootw  Oaupaaroq  : 
Justice  *  *  *  neither  the  evening  star  nor  the  morning  star  is  so 
admirable.”  (Aristotle,  Nicomachean  Ethics ,  v,  i.) 

“ w E<ttc  ôè  7 zoXiTizàv  àyaOô v  to  dixatov ,  toutu  d'itrr]  to  y.ovÆ 
aup.<pipov\  The  good  in  politics  is  justice,  and  justice  is  general  util, 
ity.” 


One  of  the  arguments  which  Demosthenes  developed 
with  the  greatest  force  against  Philip  was  the  insta¬ 
bility  of  all  power  founded  on  injustice.  An  interpre¬ 
ter  of  human  conscience,  the  orator  of  the  Second 
Olynthiac ,  by  declaring  the  edifice  of  iniquitous  power 
ruinous,  affirms  what  ought  to  be  as  a  consolation  for 
what  is.  After  the  consecration  of  the  honorable,  the 
only  basis  of  lasting  success,  he  demanded  the  union 
of  the  honorable  and  the  useful.  The  Socratic  doc¬ 
trine,  so  pure  of  intention,  in  this  case  inclines  to  a 
dangerous  exaggeration.  In  Socrates’  eyes,  a  thing  is 
not  good  when  it  is  good  for  nothing.  Aristiyopus  : 
“Is  a  basket  for  rubbish,  then,  a  beautiful  object?” 
Socrates :  “Yes,  by  Jupiter!  and  a  golden  shield  is 
ugly,  if  the  one  is  conveniently  adapted  to  its  use  and 
the  other  is  not.”*  This  sentiment  has  at  least  the 
merit  of  purity  and  frankness,  a  quality  which  is  want¬ 
ing  in  the  following  Stoic  paradox,  The  honorable  is 
always  useful ,  and  alone  useful ,  a  theory  founded  on 
an  equivocation  in  which  moral  utility  and  practical 
utility  are  confounded.  Both  parties  are  somewhat 
mistaken.  Socrates,  in  the  Portico,  exaggerated  the 
truth.  Demosthenes  adopts  a  just  medium  when  he 


*  See  above,  p.  32,  the  text  ami  the  note.  The  utilitarian  aesthetics 
of  Socrates  leads  to  the  utilitarian  morality  of  the  Epicureans  and  of 
the  Sceptics. 


380 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


says:  “We  must  always  aim  at  justice,  and  practice 
it,  but  in  tlie  meantime  we  must  seek  measures  to 
identify  it  with  our  interests.”*  The  politician  guards 
against  ideal  speculations,  and  considers  only  the  reali¬ 
ty  of  things.  He  pursues  the  honorable  and  the  useful 
at  the  same  time.  What  more  can  we  ask  of  him  ? 

The  political  motto  of  Hobbes  was  the  saying  of 
Plautus:  “Man  to  man  is  a  wolf”;f  the  state  of 
nature  is  brigandage.  Since  men  are  inclined  by  in¬ 
stinct  to  destroy  one  another,  they  need  a  powerful 
despot  capable  of  establishing  order  in  society.  Aris¬ 
totle  did  not  .view  human  nature  in  the  same  light. 
Man,  said  he,  is  a  social  being  (-oXtrudv  justice 

is  u  that  which  is  useful  to  the  greatest  number,”  and 
when  thus  understood  it  constitutes  the  best  politics. 
The  thought  of  Demosthenes  is  not  less  generous  than 
that  of  the  Stagirite.  Justice,  in  his  eyes,  is  the  de¬ 
fense  of  the  oppressed.  Such  has  always  been,  and 
such  ought  to  ever  be,  the  policy  of  Athens.  The  Me- 
galapolitans  (Arcadia)  besought  Athens  for  aid  against 
Lacedæmon,  then  her  ally.  Sparta  claimed  this  alli¬ 
ance  in  order  to  dissuade  her  rival  from  assisting  the 
attacked  city. 

“  I  wonder,  also,  to  hear  it  argued  that,  if  we  espouse  the 
Arcadian  alliance  and  adopt  these  measures,  our  state  will  be 
chargeable  with  inconsistencv  and  bad  faith.  It  seems  to  me, 
0  Athenians,  the  reverse.  Why?  Because  no  man,  I  appre¬ 
hend,  will  deny  that  in  defending  the  Lacedaemonians,  and 
the  Thebans  before  them,  and  lastly  the  Eubœans,  and  making 
them  afterward  her  allies,  our  republic  has  always  had  one 

*  For  the  Megalopolitans,  §  10. 

f  “  Homo  liomini  lupus,  quem  non  gnoveris.”  In  suppressing 
this  restriction,  tlie  Christian  philosopher  aggravates  the  offensiveness 
of  the  Latin  poet’s  sentence. 


RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS.  381 


and  the  same  object.  What  is  that?  To  protect  the  injured. 
If  this  be  so,  the  inconsistency  will  not  be  ours,  but  theirs 
who  refuse  to  adhere  to  justice;  and  it  will  appear  that  while 
circumstances  change,  through  people  continually  encroach¬ 
ing,  Athens  changes  not.”  * 

The  protection  of  the  weak  was  so  strict  an  obliga¬ 
tion  in  Demosthenes’  mind,  that  he  made  it  the  sover¬ 
eign  criterion  of  justice  between  Athens  and  other  states. 
To  him  it  was  the  source  of  honor  and  the  foundation 
of  equity 

“  Men  dispose  of  their  actions  easily,  but  no  one  is  power¬ 
ful  enough  to  govern  the  opinion  which  judges  those  acts. 
The  people  publish  over  the  author  of  an  act  whatever  appre¬ 
ciation  the  act  deserves.  Let  us  therefore  act  so  that  our 
politics  will  conform  to  justice;  let  us  establish  them  on  this 
principle:  let  us  do  unto  the  oppressed  what  we  would  wish 
that  others  would  do  unto  us  in  adversity  (but  may  this  never 
await  us  !)”  {Twenty -second  Exordium.) 

In  the  oration  For  the  Liberty  of  the  Rhodians ,  De¬ 
mosthenes  makes  a  distinction  between  social  and  inter¬ 
national  justice;  but  this  time  he  does  not  impose  upon 
the  latter  the  obligation  of  moral  beauty. 

“  I  believe  it  a  just  measure  to  establish  the  Rhodian 
democracy;  yet,  granting  it  were  not  just,  when  I  look  at 
the  conduct  of  these  people,  I  conceive  it  right  to  advise  the 
measure.  And  why  ?  Because,  0  Athenians,  if  all  men 
were  inclined  to  observe  justice,  it  would  be  disgraceful  for 
us  alone  to  refuse;  but  when  all  the  rest  are  seeking  the 
power  to  do  wrong,  for  us  to  profess  high  principles  and  un¬ 
dertake  no  enterprise,  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  not  justice  but 
cowardice.  I  see  that  men  have  their  rights  allowed  them  in 
proportion  to  their  power.  *  *  *  For,  although  private  po¬ 
litical  rights  are  granted  by  the  laws  impartially  to  all,  the 


*  Cf.  Aristotle,  Politics ,  v,  7. 


382 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


same  for  the  weak  as  for  the  strong,  the  rule  of  Hellenic 

O  7 

right  is  prescribed  by  the  greater  powers  to  the  less.” 

A  short  time  previous  the  orator,  sympathizing  with 
the  Megalapolitans,  placed  Hellenic  right,  which  Ath¬ 
ens  identified  with  protection  of  the  weak,*  below 
strict  right.  He  subordinated  absolute  justice  to  inter¬ 
national  justice,  as  a  modern  politician  would  sacrifice 
exact  equity  to  European  equilibrium.  The  protector 
of  Rhodian  liberty  went  farther  and  farther.  He  rec¬ 
ognized  a  social  morality  arising  from  equity,  and  a 
Hellenic  morality  subject  to  the  law  of  force.  What 
was  his  aim  ?  He  wished  that  all  people  should  see  in 
the  Athenians  the  defenders  of  common  independence. 
Let  us  sound  the  depths  of  his  thought:  the  supremacy 
of  Athens,  the  champion  of  Hellenic  liberty,  would 
realize  for  him  the  reign  of  justice  in  Greece. 

Thucydides  likewise  (vi,  89)  reminded  Athens  that 
it  was  her  political  and  moral  obligation  to  raise  her¬ 
self  to  the  protectorship  of  the  free  states:  this  was 
the  most  ingenious  and  certain  method  for  her  to  en¬ 
counter  the  preponderance  of  Lacedæmonian  oligar¬ 
chy.  This  policy  conciliated  the  useful  and  the  hon¬ 
orable.  Demosthenes,  in  his  turn,  celebrated  its 
advantages  and  magnanimity;  but,  inconstant  to  him¬ 
self,  after  having  established  the  law  of  honor,  he 
stranded  upon  the  apology  of  force:  this  fall  was  not 
expected,  and  what  excuse  did  he  give  for  it?  The 
spectacle  of  universal  injustice.  *  *  *  Too  often,  in¬ 
deed,  the  example  of  successful  iniquity  is  alluring; 
the  dog  of  Fontaine  (viii,  7)  did  not  resist  it.  He  was 
carrying  his  master’s  dinner  home  for  him;  a  mastiff* 
attacks  him:  a  great  struggle.  Other  aggressors  come 

*  ânXcùq  fir]  TzpoicOai  /irjôéva  rœv  èXazrô^roj^  rœ  fizî^ovi. 


RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS.  383 


upon  him.  The  faithful  guardian  foresees  his  defeat; 
he  decides  to  make  the  best  of  it. 

Notre  chien,  se  voyant  trop  faible  contre  eux  tous, 

Et  que  la  chair  courait  un  danger  manifeste, 

Volut  avoir  sa  part;  et,  lui  sage,  il  leur  dit: 

Point  de  courroux,  messieurs;  mon  lopin  me  suffit; 

Faites  votre  profit  du  reste. 

A  ces  mots,  le  premier  il  vous  happe  un  morceau; 

Et  chacun  de  tirer,  le  matin,  la  canaille, 

A  qui  mieux  mieux:  ils  firent  tous  ripaille; 

Chacun  d’eux  eut  part  au  gâteau.* 

Thus  certain  congresses,  in  the  name  of  justice  (dis¬ 
tributive),  cut  up  a  victim  in  the  interests  of  general 
peace.  The  Athenian  maxim  is  then  justified:  each 
has  his  rights  allowed  him  in  proportion  to  his 
strength;  for  none  of  those  interested  would  believe 
it  his  advantage  to  he  just  while  the  others  were 
unjust. 

Demosthenes  made  a  distinction  between  social  and 
international  justice.  In  what  measure  is  this  dis¬ 
tinction  legitimate,  and,  if  it  is  admitted,  what  con¬ 
sequences  can  be  drawn  from  it  ?  In  principle,  justice 
does  not  change  its  nature  when  it  changes  its  theater: 
let  it  be  applied  to  individuals  or  to  groups  of  indi¬ 
viduals,  to  citizens  of  a  single  state  or  to  several 
states,  it  remains  the  same  in  its  essence.  Good, 
according  to  Kant,  is  that  which  can  be  universalized 
with  impunity.  Justice  being  one  and  absolute  in 

*  Our  dog,  seeing  that  lie  was  too  weak  against  them  all,  and  that 
the  meat  was  running  a  manifest  danger,  desired  to  have  his  share; 
and  he  wisely  said  to  them  :  Do  not  be  angry,  gentlemen,  my  portion 
will  satisfy  me;  you  are  at  liberty  to  profit  by  the  rest.  At  these 
words  he  first  snapped  a  mouthful,  and  each  dog  tore  off  all  he  could 
of  the  meat.  They  all  feasted, —  each  of  them  had  a  share  of  the 
cake. 


384 


POLITICxVL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GEEECE. 


itself,  tlie  principles  of  social  justice  should  be  capable 
of  being  extended  to  international  justice,  and  the  right 
of  individuals  generalized,  ought  to  become  the  right 
of  nations.  In  the  actual  state  of  Europe  these  two 
kinds  of  justice  are  very  unequally  observed.  Social 
justice  is  differently  respected  in  each  state.  In  no 
case  is  the  citizen  authorized  to  violate  it,  even  after 
another  has  violated  it  to  his  detriment.  Indeed,  if 

j 

the  principle  of  reprisals  were  admitted,  it  would  de¬ 
stroy  social  order,  whose  maintenance  is  a  better  safe¬ 
guard  of  all  particular  interests  than  the  prosecution 
of  crime  or  individual  repression.  The  state  is  effi¬ 
ciently  armed,  for  the  defense  of  its  members,  with 
laws  which  protect  them  against  every  aggressor. 
Thus  a  social  contract,  which  is  fortified  by  sufficient 
sanctions,  renders  each  people  respectful  to  itself. 
On  the  contrary,  we  have  not  yet  been  able  to  estab¬ 
lish  a  similar  international  code  for  Europe.  She  has 
treaties  and  temporary  conventions,  very  similar  to 
a  simple  truce.  She  has  no  penalty  sufficient  to  pre¬ 
vent  misdemeanors  or  to  suppress  and  chastise  vio¬ 
lence.  If  an  European  state  violates  justice  in  order 
to  injure  us,  have  we  also  a  right  to  violate  it  in  order 
to  secure  our  defense?  This  violation  is  lamentable; 
for  evil  always  remains  evil  and  nothing  modifies  or 
transforms  it  absolutely.  But  is  not  Europe  excus¬ 
able?  The  temporary  and  precarious  compact  which 
bound  the  states  together  by  the  supposition  that  it 
existed,  has  been  broken;  anarchy  succeeds  consented 
order;  the  law  of  Nature,  the  law  of  diplomacy.  To 
demand  of  injustice  a  recourse  against  injustice  is 
abnormal  and  immoral,  viewed  in  the  light  of  principle; 
but  practically  allowable,  since  necessity  exacts  it. 
Civil  law  forbids  us  to  injure  another,  but  permits 


RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS.  385 


the  killing  of  a  murderer.  When  a  nation’s  life  or 
honor,  which  is  one  of  its  vital  forces,  is  threatened, 
it  no  longer  recognizes  any  other  law  than  that  of 
preservation,  and  it  no  longer  discusses  the  means 
of  securing  it.*  If  it  does  not  defend  itself,  what 
foreign  force  will  have  the  authority  and  power  to 
defend  it  ?  Perhaps  Europe  will  some  day  recognize 
a  sovereign  arbitration,  a  justice  of  universal  peace, 
sufficiently  strong  and  respected  to  decide  quarrels 
and  to  give  decisions.  With  such  an  arbitration  the 
Hellenic  world  was  unacquainted  in  Philip’s  time;  it 
has  been  wanting  among  modern  nations  even  to  our 
day.  The  boldest  princes  have  sometimes  been  con¬ 
strained  to  respect  the  law,  the  common  protectress 
of  their  subjects:  the  destruction  of  social  peace  and 
the  loss  of  their  crown,  would  perhaps  have  punished 
them  for  their  iniquities.  Against  a  neighboring  state 
if  it  is  weak,  violence  offers  less  risks.  Frederick 
the  Great  respected  the  heritage  of  the  miller  of  Sans- 
Souci  (this  was  social  right),  and  violated  Silesia  (this 
was  the  way  he  understood  international  law).  There 
were  judges  at  Berlin  for  a  mill;  where  could  judges 
be  found  for  provinces  ? 

*  Balzac  {Le  Prince ,  ch.  viii)  deplores  the  discredit  of  the  old 
theology,  less  accommodating,  hut  more  virtuous  than  the  new:  “It 
plainly  says  that  a  little  evil  is  forbidden,  when  great  good  is  to 
result  from  it;  that  if  the  world  can  be  saved  only  by  a  trespass,  it 
is  of  the  opinion  that  it  should  be  let  go  to  ruin  *  *  *;  that  God  has 
placed  in  our  hands  his  commandments  and  not  the  government  of 
the  universe.”  In  ch.  xxx  the  thesis  is  very  different:  “A  drown¬ 
ing  person  indifferently  catches  at  everything  he  meets  *  *  *; 
necessity  excuses  and  justifies  all  he  does.  The  law  of  God  has  not 
repealed  the  law  of  Nature.  *  *  *  To  defend  oneself  with  the  left 
hand  is  not  trespassing.”  The  latter  is  far  from  the  principle  of  the 
old  theology.  These  two  chapters  are  to  be  read;  in  them  will  be 
found  the  change  of  front  of  the  political  moralist. 

17 


386 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


The  struggle  for  life  is  a  natural  and  a  generally 
legitimate  law,  but  the  infringement  of  justice  for  self- 
defense  is  not  the  employment  of  force  to  destroy  jus¬ 
tice,  nor  is  it  the  adoption  of  the  maxim,  Might  makes 
right.  Demosthenes  witnessed  the  triumph  of  this 
detestable  principle,  and  wished  to  draw  from  it  en¬ 
couragement  for  its  application.  In  this  he  failed.  He 
was  better  inspired  when  he  recommended  to  the  judges 
of  LejDtines’  law  that  they  should  not  permit  as  citi¬ 
zens  what  they  would  reprove  as  men.  How,  if  in  social 
relations  it  is  necessary  that  right  should  prevail  over 
passion,  why  should  it  not  be  so  among  cities  ?  States 
represent  so  many  individuals,  and  ought  to  tend,  out 
of  respect  to  the  right,  to  the  establishment  of  an  asso¬ 
ciation  similar  to  that  which  binds  the  members  of  each 
state.  Admitting  the  legitimacy  of  might  is  encourag¬ 
ing  individuals,  who  compose  the  human  family,  to  the 
regime  of  savage  life. 

The  idea  of  right  was  generally  weak  among  the 
Greeks.  The  resources  of  Athens  are  exhausted;  she 
throws  herself  upon  an  allied  town  in  Bœotia,  Oropus, 
and  pillages  it  from  top  to  bottom.  4  4  This  was  not  through 
malignity,  but  through  necessity.”  Such  is  the  moral 
conclusion  which  Pausanias  (vii,  11)  draws  from  this 
robbery.  A  teacher  of  morality  who  made  pretensions 
to  gravity,  Isocrates,  gave  an  eloquent  exposition  on 
the  inseparable  union  of  the  useful  and  the  honorable. 
Then  when  he  had  to  express  himself  on  the  violences 
of  Athens,  he  acquitted  her  with  this  excuse: 

“  The  Athenians  thought  that  between  two  grievous  evils 
they  must  choose  the  maltreatment  of  others  rather  than  the 
maltreatment  of  themselves,  and  the  unjust  rule  over  other 
people  rather  than  the  unjust  enslavement  of  themselves  by 
Lacedæmon;  and  all  well-informed  people  would  think  the 


RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS.  387 


same.  Some  moralists,  however,  affecting  wisdom,  would 
speak  and  think  otherwise.” 

Melos  and  Scion  made  no  better  impression  on  his 
coldness: 

“  We  have  been  accused  of  enslaving  the  inhabitants  of 
Melos  and  destroying  those  of  Scion.  According  to  my  opin¬ 
ion,  it  is  not  in  the  least  a  proof  of  our  tyranny,  that  people  who 
have  made  war  on  us  should  be  severely  punished  {acpodpa 
xoXaffiïévreç)-,  but  it  is  a  strong  proof  that  we  govern  our  peo¬ 
ple  well,  that  none  of  the  subjugated  cities  have  suffered  a 
similar  punishment.”  * 

Isocrates  gave  the  matter  little  consideration,  and 
disposed  of  it  lightly. 

The  stability7  of  thought,  especially  the  perfect  har¬ 
mony  of  theory  and  practice,  will,  on  certain  subjects, 
always  be  rare  among  men.  Generally",  disavowals 
given  to  speculation  are  detrimental  to  morality.  We 
think  well  and  act  ill.  Sometimes  deeds  are  better 
than  words.  The  writings  of  Helvetius  are  like  those 
of-  an  Epicurean.  Ilis  life  was  that  of  a  sage.  Such 
theories  have  undergone  contradictions  which  are 
profitable  to  truth  and  good.  The  speculative  scepti¬ 
cism  of  Kant,  not  daring  to  maintain  its  pretensions 
before  morality,  abdicates  in  its  favor.  Leibnitz  has 
also  fallen  into  a  fortunate  inconsistency".  The  author 
of  the  Essais  de  Théodicée  praises  God  for  tolerating 
particular  evils  which  are  the  origin  of  general  good. 
For  evil  is  often  the  condition  of  good.  “The  grain 
which  we  sow  is  subject  to  a  kind  of  corruption  in 
order  to  germinate.”  We  see,  then,  that  the  Creator 
authorizes  us  to  use  the  maxim,  The  end  justifies  the 

*  Panegyric,  §§  63,  100;  On  the  Peace ,  §  28;  Panathenaicus,  §  117; 
Antidosis. 


388  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


means,  and  to  enjoy  tlie  benefit  of  state  rights.  Should 
we  accord  the  same  privilege  to  man  ?  God  forbid  it! 

“  The  rule  Non  esse  facienda  mala  at  eveniant  bona  is  con¬ 
firmed.  The  act  of  a  queen  will  not  be  approved  if  she  aims 
to  save  the  state  by  committing,  or  permitting,  a  crime.  The 
crime  is  certain,  and  the  evil  to  the  state  is  doubtful.  *  *  * 
But  in  regard  to  God,  nothing  is  doubtful,  and  nothing  could 
be  opposed  to  the  rule  of  the  best,  which  does  not  suffer  some 
exception  or  dispensation.” 

Therefore  God  will  always  have  the  right  to  pursue 
the  best,  even  with  the  aid  of  evil,  because  he  knows- 
with  certainty  the  result.  Man  will  not.  The  evil 
which  he  hopes  to  correct,  and  the  good  which  he 
imagines  he  can  effect,  are  equally  uncertain.  If,  how¬ 
ever,  certainty  on  these  two  points  were  established, 
would  not  the  evil  destined  to  produce  an  indisputable 
good  be  permitted,  and  even  be  praiseworthy  ?  Logic¬ 
ally,  Leibnitz  could  not  deny  the  affirmative.  But 
logic  is  not  always  the  ruling  quality  of  metaphysL 
cians.  Leibnitz,  therefore,  contradicts  himself  by 
refusing  to  subject  man  and  God  to  the  same  moral 
principle,  and  the  defense  which  the  theorist  of  op¬ 
timism  makes  of  his  endeavor  to  imitate  God  proves- 
that  the  system  attributed  to  God,  and  that  of  the 
author,  are  both  very  questionable. 

Philosophers  who  are  well  informed  on  politics,  or 
politicians  who  aspire  to  philosophy,  are  seldom  con¬ 
sistent  with  themselves.*  In  this  there  is  nothing 
astonishing.  Even  professional  philosophers  are  not 

*  Frederick  II  was  a  philosopher  in  his  correspondence  with  Vol- 
atire,  and  in  the  Anii-Machiavel.  However,  he  displayed  little  phi¬ 
losophy  on  the  throne  and  in  his  foreign  relations.  “Who  talks 
politics  talks  all  hut  knavery.”  The  king  of  Prussia  spoke  of  politics 
as  Rochefoucault  spoke  of  disinterested  virtue  :  “  Qui  a  la  jaunisse  voit 
tout  en  jaune.” 


RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS.  389 


always  consistent.  Plato  placed  justice  in  tlie  number 
of  noblest  ideas  which  constitute  the  retinue  and  radi¬ 
ance  of  the  perfections  of  divinity.  Nevertheless,  in 
his  Republic  he  disregarded  justice  and  liberty  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  proscribe  the  elementary  rights  of  the 
individual,  the  instinct  of  propriety,  and  the  natural 
affections  of  the  family.  They  are  drowned  by  him  in 
the  state  “  as  a  few  drops  of  honey  in  a  great  quantity 
of  water.”*  The  most  powerful  genius  of  antiquity  did 
not  always  escape,  if  not  formal  contradictions,  at  least 
the  divergence  of  various  views  acceptable,  each  in 
itself,  by  virtue  of  their  happy  media,  but  not  easy  to 
reconcile. 

Aristotle’s  method  differs  from  Plato’s.  Plato  gen¬ 
erally  devotes  himself  to  pure  speculation.  He  lays 
down,  or  rather  seeks,  principles  whose  formula  is  the 
object  of  his  Dialogues /  therefore  he  pursues  the  defi¬ 
nition  of  the  good,  of  the  beautiful,  and  of  the  holy. 
In  the  Gorgias  he  examines  like  a  philosopher  the 
relations  between  justice  and  eloquence,  and  as  dia¬ 
lectics  appear  to  him  alone  capable  of  realizing  truth 
and  good,  he  sacrifices  to  it  rhetoric,  which  merely 
aims  at  probabilities  and  the  appearance  of  the  use¬ 
ful.  Aristotle  proceeds  differently.  At  first  he  es¬ 
tablishes  principles;  then,  after  making  these  reserva¬ 
tions,  he  gives  rules  adapted  to  the  ordinary  course 
of  things.  He  affirms  what  ought  to  be,  then  he  ex¬ 
plains  what  is. 

Thus  in  his  Rhetoric  he  first  regrets,  in  the  name 
of  truth  and  justice,  that  human  infirmity  has  created 
an  art  condemnable  in  itself.  If  men  were  wise,  elo¬ 
quence  would  be  no  more  necessary  to  the  orator 
than  to  the  mathematician  and  the  geometrician.  But 

*  Politics ,  Aristotle,  ii,  1. 


390 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE 


hearers  have  a  perverted  taste  ( 'jwyO-qpia v).  They  are 
not  satisfied  with  convincing  demonstration.  We  will 
therefore  speak  of  elocution  and  the  means  of  render¬ 
ing  it  seductive.  Action  deserves  the  disdain  of  sen¬ 
sible  minds,  but  the  mob  exact  it  of  their  orators  as 
of  their  comedians.  Things  are  not  what  they  should 
be,  but  necessity  knows  no  law.*  We  must  respect 
the  law.  Nevertheless,  here  are  some  artifices  of  rea¬ 
soning  to  weaken  them  if  they  condemn  you,  and  to 
strengthen  them  if  they  justify  you.  According  as 
the  case  may  be,  make  a  breach  in  the  written  law  in 
the  name  of  natural  law,  or  in  the  natural  law  in  the 
name  of  the  written  law.  Apply  the  same  practice 
to  contracts  and  treaties.  The  city  reposes  on  the 
equality  and  application  of  a  law  common  to  all. 
Ought  great  men  also  to  be  subject  to  it  1  No  ! 

“  It  would  be  injurious  to  them  to  reduce  them  to  a  com¬ 
mon  equality,  when  their  merit  and  their  political  import¬ 
ance  place  them  entirely  beyond  comparison.  Such  persons, 
it  may  be  said,  are  gods  among  men, —  a  new  proof  that  legis¬ 
lation  can  concern  only  individuals  who  are  equal  by  birth 
and  faculties.  But  the  law  is  not  made  for  these  superior 
beings.  They  themselves  are  the  law.  It  would  be  ridicu¬ 
lous  to  attempt  to  submit  them  to  the  constitution,  for  they 
would  follow  Antisthenes,  and  would  answer  as  did  the  lions 
to  the  decree  rendered  by  the  assembly  of  hares  on  the  gen¬ 
eral  equality  of  animals.”  f 

Morality,  considered  in  itself,  has  unchangeable 
principles.  In  detailed  applications  it  is  as  individual 
and  opportune  as  medicine.:):  It  is  not  an  iron  rule, 

*  Rhetoric,  iii,  1.  Oox.  opOœç  'iyovroç  àXX  wç  àvayxaiou.  (Cf.  i, 
13,  15.) 

t  Politics ,  iii,  8.  These  lions  recall  those  of  the  Gorgias. 

X  Nicomachean  Ethics ,  ii,  2. 


I 


RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS.  391 


rigid  and  inflexible.  It  is  tlie  lead  rule  of  Lesbos  which 
bends  to  the  accidents  of  tlie  stone  and  follows  its  con¬ 
tours. 

Does  the  philosopher  contradict  himself  in  these 
various  assertions?  We  prefer  to  say  that  he  divides 
the  subject  into  two  branches.  He  sees  things  from 
a  theoretical,  and  then  from  a  practical,  point  of  view 
under  their  double  aspect.  The  political  orator  did 
not  thus  present  the  two  faces  of  Janus.  Lie  confined 
himself  to  that  face  which  suited  his  purpose.  He 
omitted  theoretical  restrictions,  and  went  straight  to 
the  reality  of  things.  How,  reality  and  political  ne¬ 
cessity  frequently  do  violence  to  speculative  truth. 
Plato  and  Aristotle,  by  accepting  slavery,  submitted 
to  this  yoke.  Since  ancient  society  rested  on  this 
iniquity,  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  think  of  shak¬ 
ing  it  from  its  foundations.  The  political  and  social 
organization  of  the  state  prevented  the  ancients  from 
seeing  truth  in  this  light,  or,  if  they  did  see  it,  from 
mentioning  it  and  from  pleading  for  a  cause  whose 
triumph,  then  impossible,  was  to  be  realized  many 
centuries  after  the  advent  of  Christianity;  and  so,  in 
the  best  philosophers,  principles  and  the  application 
of  principles,  absolute  morality  and  political  interest, 
have  little  harmony.  The  people,  we  are  told,  will 
be  happy  when  kings  are  philosophers,  or  philoso¬ 
phers  kings.  According  to  this  they  are  destined 
never  to  be  happy.  A  king  may  be  a  philosopher  in 
his  spiritual  tribunal.  He  is  chief  of  state  in  his  coun¬ 
cil.  When  perchance  philosophy  reigns,  it  does  not 
govern.  A  theoretical  moralist  celebrates  with  de¬ 
light  ideal  justice,  contemplated  in  its  essence  and  in 
the  perfection  of  its  absolute  beauty.  “Neither  the 
rising  nor  the  setting  of  the  sun  is  as  worthy  of  ad- 


392 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


miration  !”'*’*  *  Ecstasy  is  forbidden  to  tlie  poli¬ 
tician.  He  does  not  contemplate  the  intellectual 
world.  He  endeavors  to  see  distinctly  tlie  real  world 
and  to  diminish  the  infinite  distance  which  separates 
them.  Since  it  is  generally  refused  him  to  realize 
absolute  good,*  he  confines  his  ambition  to  the  task 
of  doing  the  most  possible  good  and  the  least  possible 
harm;  for  he  must  not  become  a  slave  to  ideas,  but 
must  be  classed  with  men. 

Let  us  note  the  difference  between  the  ancients  and 
the  moderns  in  regard  to  diverse  forms  of  moral  obli- 
gation.  The  ancients  were,  first  of  all,  citizens;  they 
subordinated  morality  to  politics, f  and  all  duties  to 
civic  duty.  Hence  the  appropriate  character  of  Cicero’s 
De  Officiis ,  a  work  so  perfect  according  to  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  SainfiCyran,  that  he  was  astonished  that  it 
could  have  been  inspired  by  a  purely  human  genius 
before  the  time  of  Christianity.  How,  this  work  is 
essentially  a  treatise  on  social  morality.  In  it  Cicero 
places  duty  to  the  gods  in  the  first  rank,  and  scarcely 
mentions  this  duty  in  the  rest  of  the  work.  This  is 
because  the  pagans  had  no  need  of  a  special  religious 
morality  or  precepts  exclusively  relative  to  obligations 
to  the  Divinity.  They  served  their  divinity  by  serving 
their  country. 

The  God  of  the  Christians  is  the  God  of  humanity. 
The  pagan  divinities  were  wanting  in  this  character  of 
universality.  Zeus,  it  is  true,  extended  his  empire  over 
the  entire  civilized  world,  without  devoting  himself  to 
any  particular  nation  or  country.  But,  under  him,  the 
immortals  willingly  adopted  certain  countries.  They 

*  The  nature  of  tilings  is  such  that  the  good  and  the  had  are 
everywhere  found  in  company.  (Plato,  Laics.) 

f  Politics,  iii,  7  ;  To  JYicomachus,  i,  1.  Esprit  des  Lois ,  xxiii,  17. 


RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS. 


393 


had  on  earth  a  legal  domicile  and  sometimes  even  tem¬ 
poral  lodgings.  They  formed  an  integral  part  of  the 
city  where  they  were  strongly  established.  *  To  defend 
the  state  wras  to  defend  them;  the  defeat  of  the  state 
involved  their  defeat  and  condemned  them  to  the  loss 
of  their  consecrated  residence  and  to  exile.  ./Eneas 
carried  with  him  his  vanquished  gods  and  sought  a  new 
country  for  them.  And  so,  while  among  modern  na¬ 
tions  religious  faith  cannot  always  be  in  perfect  har¬ 
mony  with  patriotic  feeling,  among  the  ancients  relig¬ 
ious  duty  and  civic  duty,  far  from  counteracting  each 
other,  fortified  each  other  to  the  benefit  of  the  state. 

Montesquieu  recalls  the  trait  of  Persian  Cambyses 
who  placed  certain  animals  sacred  to  the  Egyptians  be¬ 
fore  his  soldiers.  The  Egyptians  were  so  stupid  that 
they  did  not  dare  to  kill  them,  and  the  besieged  city 
was  captured.  “Who  does  not  see  that  a  natural  de¬ 
fense  is  superior  to  all  precejits  ?  ”  f  So  the  ancients 
judged.  They  esteemed  devotion  to  the  state  much 
higher  than  the  realization  of  such  a  particular  moral 
good.  Public  good  was  preeminently  the  good  ;  who 
virtuously  served  his  country  had  no  need  of  other 
virtues.  Sometimes  the  political  moralist,  in  recalling 
the  principles  of  philosophy,  modified  by  a  restriction 
the  imperious  order  of  sacrificing  all  to  state  interests. 
“There  are  hideous  and  infamous  things  which  the 
wise  man  will  not  do,  even  to  save  the  state.”  ^  But 

*  When  the  Spartan  kings  departed  for  war,  they  carried  the  two 
Tyndarides  with  them;  these  were  their  companion  gods.  Cicero 
conjured  the  Romans  to  avenge  the  national  gods  ( deos  patrios)  of 
Sicily  as  if  they  were  their  own.  ( Against  Verres ,  ii,  livre  4,  cli.  43, 
51.)  See  M.  Tustel  de  Coulanges,  La  Cite  Antique ,  iii,  G. 

f  Esprit  des  Lois,  xxvi,  7. 

X  De  officiis ,  i,  45.  This  exception  to  the  sovereign  rule  does  not 
trouble  Cicero  much  ;  fortunately  a  thought  puts  him  at  his  ease  ( hoc 


394 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


this  is  merely  a  concession  made,  for  form’s  sake,  to 
the  idea  of  absolute  good  and  to  the  Stoic  maxim  that 
the  honorable  alone  is  truly  useful.  Cicero  well  knew 
that  the  wisdom  of  the  politician  was  not  that  of  Zeno; 
he  even  reproached  Cato  for  constantly  stating  his 
opinions  as  in  the  ideal  city  of  Plato  and  injuring  the 
republic  by  his  narrow  inflexibility.*  Let  the  safety 
of  the  people  be  the  supreme  law.  Such  was,  upon 
the  whole,  the  fundamental  maxim  of  ancient  politics 
and  morality. 

Christian  spiritualism  inspired  modern  nations  with 
a  more  delicate  morality,  and,  in  a  measure,  more  per¬ 
sonal  than  civic.  A  Christian  prince  can  place  the  in¬ 
terest  of  his  soul  and  the  interest  of  state  on  the  same 
level,  sometimes  even  sacrifice  the  interest  of  state  to 
conscientious  scruples..  In  1259,  by  the  treaty  of  Ab¬ 
beville,  Louis  IX  restored  Limousin,  Périgord,  Quercy 
and  Agénois  to  Henry  III  of  England  against  their 
will.  u  His  conscience  troubled  him”f  on  account  of  the 
conquests  made  in  France  by  his  ancestors  over  the 
future  adversaries  of  the  Hundred  Years’ War.  When 
once  engaged  in  this  pursuit,  why  did  not  the  saintly 
king  continue  to  the  end?  Was  a  partial  restitution  a 
“good  returning”  ?  To  reduce  the  kingdom  to  the  do¬ 
main  of  Hugh  Capet  would  have  been  logical.;);  In  the 
eyes  of  the  Christian  moralist  piety  is  the  whole  of  man, 

commodius  se  res  habet), — that  the  republic  will  never  exact  such  a  sac¬ 
rifice  of  the  sage. 

*  Ad  Atticum ,  ii,  1.  A  passage  commented  upon  by  Camille  Des¬ 
moulins.  ( Les  Vieux  Cordelier ,  Noe  7,  1  tin.,  3  fin.) 

f  Guizot,  Histoire  de  la  Civilisation  en  France,  14e  leçon. 

X  Carneades  said  to  the  Romans:  “  Every  people  who  have  pos¬ 
sessed  empire,  and  the  Romans  themselves,  masters  of  the  world,  if 
they  wished  to  he  just, — that  is,  to  restore  the  goods  of  others, — would 
return  to  their  huts  and  become  resigned  to  the  miseries  of  poverty.” 


RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS.  395 


even  on  the  throne  ;  and  it  is  not  confounded,  like 
ancient  piety,  with  love  of  country.  The  Christian 
turns  all  to  the  safety  of  his  soul;  the  Greek  or  Roman, 
of  perfect  virtue,  turned  all  to  the  safety  of  the  state. 

Antiquity  was  less  interested  in  man,  considered  in 
himself,  than  in  the  citizen,  and  especially  studied  his 
rôle  in  the  state. 

Political  science  was  to  the  ancients  the  fundamental 
and  architectonie  science.  Consequently  political  jus¬ 
tice  (distinguished  from  domestic  and  civil  justice)  gives 
to  good  its  most  excellent  form.  This  reminds  us  of 
the  peripatetic  definition  of  justice, — that  which  is  use¬ 
ful  to  the  greatest  number.  Plato’s  definition  in  his 
Republic  is  equally  stamped  with  an  eminently  social 
character,  and  has  nothing  common  with  the  definition: 
To  each  his  own.  It  consists  in  a  decorous  subordina¬ 
tion  of  three  elements  which  constitute  the  state, — the 
philosophers  who  govern  it,  the  warriors  who  defend  it, 
and  the  artisans  whose  labor  nourishes  it.  This  justice 
has,  therefore,  nothing  to  do  whh  equality  of  rights, 
nor  with  individual  liberty,  both  of  which  Plato  sacri¬ 
fices  to  the  desire  of  unity;  it  results  from  a  certain 
harmony,  from  a  certain  order,  according  to  the  philos¬ 
opher,  necessary  to  a  good  constitution  of  the  state.* 

The  social  prejudices  familiar  to  the  ancients  further 
explain  the  disproportion  which  they  sometimes  per¬ 
mitted  between  misdemeanors  or  crimes  and  punish¬ 
ments;  they  did  not  specially  consider  the  degree  of 

*  Likewise  justice,  for  the  individual,  springs  from  a  fitting  rela¬ 
tion  established  between  intelligence  (vuDç),  courage  ( Ou/jôç }  centre 
of  generous  passions),  and  concupiscence  (l-cOupa,  brutal  desires). 
This  justice  is  written  in  large  capital  letters  in  a  well-organized  state, 
and  in  small  capitals  in  a  well-regulated  mind;  but  the  basis  of  the 
two  inscriptions  is  identical. 


396 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


immorality  in  tlie  fault,  but  tlie  amount  of  damage  done 
to  the  state.  Plato  condemned  to  death  the  advocate 
who  received  money  for  his  services  or  supported  a 
bad  cause.  Whence  sprung  such  excessive  severity — 
from  a  desire  to  correct,  at  all  hazards,  one  of  the  worst 
plagues  of  the  Athenian  city.  The  principle  upon  which 
our  military  justice,  in  time  of  war,  rests,  is  the  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  misdemeanor  or  crime  committed  before 
the  enemy.  It  condemns  the  freebooter  to  death,  and 
the  sentinel  found  asleep  to  several  years’  imprison¬ 
ment.  Outside  of  these  particular  circumstances  mod¬ 
ern  law  fixes  a  penalty,  not  on  possible  consequences, 
but  on  the  intention.  Thus  it  does  not  punish  as  a 
murderer  the  author  of  a  murder  committed  in  a  state 
of  drunkenness.  The  ancients  were  disposed  to  punish 
not  so  much  the  guilt  as  the  injury  caused.  Hence 
suits  were  entered  even  against  inanimate  objects.  A 
stone  fell  and  killed  a  man;  it  was  formally  judged,  con¬ 
demned,  and  thrown  out  of  Attica.  Pittacus*  was  the 
author  of  a  law  which  prescribed  double  penalty  for 
crimes  committed  during  drunkenness.  As  crimes  were 
more  frequent  in  this  state  than  in  the  state  of  sober¬ 
ness,  the  legislator  consulted  the  general  utility  of 
suppressing  a  preference  for  indulgence,  which  was 
due  to  an  unconscious  appetite.  Thus  public  interest 
appears  to  have  been  the  inspiration  and  the  guide  of 
political  and  private  morality  among  the  ancients. 

Morality  in  itself  is  one  and  identical.  Its  unchange¬ 
able  essence  is  the  order  and  necessity  to  which  the 
citizen  and  the  private  man  ought  to  make  his  acts 
conform.  But  this  unique  morality  contains  many 
duties  of  unequal  dignity.  The  determination  of  this 
hierarchy  may  vary  according  to  the  media.  The  mind, 

*  Politics ,  Aristotle,  ii,  9,  fin. 


KELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS.  397 

which  changes  and  is  unequal  in  the  manifestations  of 
its  faculties  in  the  child,  the  mature  man  and  the  old 
man,  is,  however,  always  the  same  in  substance.  Thus 
the  honorable  is  the  sovereign  rule,  the  mind  of  all 
human  actions.  Nevertheless  the  honorable  is  not 
imposed  on  all  with  similar  obligations.  The  politi¬ 
cian,  whose  mission  is  to  protect  social  order  within 
and  the  security  of  the  state  without,  ought  not  to  be 
submitted  to  the  same  duties  as  the  individual,  who 
has  only  his  own  welfare  and  moral  dignity  to  defend. 
Politics  and  morality,  therefore,  are  not  contradictory; 
but  wdien  both  are  submitted  to  the  common  principle 
of  good  they  realize  it  by  different  methods,  a  legiti¬ 
mate  diversity  which  is  enforced  by  different  circum¬ 
stances  and  objects. 

In  governments,  the  less  the  political  power  is  con¬ 
centrated  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  the  more  politics  and 
justice  are  susceptible  of  harmony.  A  shepherd  wratcli- 
ing  his  flock  is,  according  to  La  Bruyère,  the  “naïve” 
picture  of  the  prince,  “if  he  is  a  good  prince.”  If  he 
is  not,  he  practices  the  maxim  of  Fra  Paolo:  “The 
first  duty  of  a  prince  is  to  maintain  himself  prince.” 
Herein  lies  the  danger  of  monarchical  power.  In  de¬ 
mocracies,  where  sovereign  authority  has  passed  from 
a  single  person  to  all,  the  pole  of  politics  is  also  dis¬ 
placed.  Interest  and  duty  then  unite  and  engage  the 
attorneys  of  the  sovereign  to  attend  to  the  welfare  of 
the  people,  on  whom  they  depend,  and  whose  inter¬ 
ests  are  united  with  their  own.  In  these  conditions 
modern  political  justice  approaches  that  of  the  ancient 
free  cities,  where  it  was  identified  with  the  advantage 
of  the  greatest  number.  Now,  when  the  governing 
and  governed  are  thus  united  by  common  interests, 
and  the  direction  of  the  people  is  intrusted  to  the 


398  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

people,  who  does  not  see  that  political  crimes  and 
public  disasters,  which  emanate  from  them,  must  neces¬ 
sarily  be  more  rare  ?  Then  no  dynastic  manœuvres 
compromise  national  prosperity  ;  no  underhand  diplo¬ 
macy  ;  none  of  those  intrigues  so  mysterious  that  the 
ministers’  secret  is  not  always  the  Secret  of  the  King. 
The  policy  of  parliaments  is  still  discreet  ;  but  it  cannot 
and  will  not  be  concealed.  The  light  of  liberty  puri¬ 
ties. 

In  the  heat  of  the  contest  Demosthenes  for  a  moment 
lost  sight  of  moral  law.  What  the  philosophers  fre¬ 
quently  did  to  humor  their  systems,  or  to  yield  to  the 
emergencies  of  the  times,  the  politician  did  in  a  burst 
of  indignation  at  the  sight  of  universal  iniquity.*  He 
dreamed'  that  his  country  would  enjoy  the  perpetuity 
of  honored  power  and  independence.  In  consequence 
of  this,  he  seems  to  have  held  strict  equity  at  a  low 
price.  To  pursue  this  course  is  dangerous.  The 
authors  of  coups  d’état  never  fail  to  allege  the  august 
authority  of  their  desired  object.  They  abandon  legal¬ 
ity  to  pursue  right.  They  cannot  confess  that  they 
violate  the  law  to  escape  its  threats.  God  forbids  us 
to  ever  excuse  the  transgression  of  the  law  ;  but  a  cri¬ 
terion  is  here  infallible  to  determine  the  amount  of 
esteem  due  the  author  of  the  attempt.  It  is  the  judi¬ 
cial  formula  :  Who  profited  by  it  ?  ( Qui  bono  fueritf') 
If  the  transgressor  of  the  law  alleged  public  welfare  in 
the  hope  of  securing  his  own  welfare,  let  us  declare 
him  a  criminal.  If  the  state  alone  is  to  gather  the 

*  Thucydides,  iii,  82.  “  In  times  of  peace,  and  in  the  heart  of 
prosperity,  states  and  individuals  have  a  better  spirit,  because  they  are 
not  thrown  against  their  will  into  trying  necessities;  but  war  *  *  * 
teaches  violence,  and  assimilates  the  passions  of  the  multitude  to  the 
severity  of  the  times.” 


RELIGIOUS  SENTIMENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES.  399 


fruit  of  the  crimeful  act,  philosophers,  be  indulgent  to 
the  politician.  The  good  God  who,  in  creating  the 
world,  wished  to  make  it  as  good  as  possible,  has, 
however,  left  it  far  from  his  own  perfection. 

III.  RELIGIOUS  SENTIMENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES. 

“01  p.b;  xdXXtffroi  xai  dyuozazot  ficoiun  b;  adzfj  zfj 
The  most  beautiful  and  sacred  altar  is  the  heart  of  a-n  honorable 
man.”  [Against  Aristogiton.) 

“(Piper;  ore  âv  6  Oeoq  didà>  yewatcoq:  Endure  with  courage 
whatever  the  god  ordains.”  ( Oration  on  the  Crown.) 

In  times  of  violent  crises,  when  evil  triumphs  among 
men,  it  is  not  rare  to  see  great  minds,  troubled  by 
the  moral  disorders  which  they  witness,  ^anxiously 
questioning  one  another  about  Providence.  The 
Epicurean  Lucretius  witnessed  the  unpunished  crimes 
of  the  triumvirate,  and  then  disavowed  the  gods, 
substituting  blind  hazard  for  them.  The  Stoic  Tacitus, 
a  contemporary  of  Domitian,  sometimes  doubted  the 
goodness  of  the  best  and  greatest  Jupiter,  and  sup¬ 
ported  the  belief  in  fatality.  In  the  midst  of  the  evils 
of  the  Macedonian  invasion,  what  were  the  feelings 
of  Demosthenes  in  this  respect  ?  The  orator  of  the 
Philippics  always  speaks  with  admiration  of  the 
power  of  fortune:  u  Fortune  is  master  of  all  things; 
it  is  the  whole  (to  oko;)  of  human  things.”  But  a  good 
fortune  can  be  the  reward  of  good  actions.  In  the  age 
of  Aristides  and  Miltiades,  the  Athenians,  faithful 
observers  of  justice  in  their  relations  between  them¬ 
selves  and  with  the  Greek  cities,  deserved  to  reach 
the  zenith  of  prosperity.  The  Gods  protected  them 
in  their  struggle  against  Philip.  What  could  be  a 
more  striking  proof  of  their  benevolence  than  the 
propitious  opportunity  offered  by  the  siege  of  Olyn- 


400 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


thus  ?  A  friendly  god  inspired  the  Macedonian  with 
an  insatiable  desire  destined  to  ruin  him  by  finally 
arousing  the  city.  Without  Athens  having  done  any¬ 
thing  to  call  them  forth,  various  favorable  circum¬ 
stances  presented  themselves  voluntarily  (aoro/xara). 
To  Divine  Providence  Demosthenes  owed  the  sagacity 
which  urged  him  to  denounce  the  enemy’s  designs. 
Heaven’s  protection,  with  the  orator’s  devotion,  was 
the  source  of  the  benefit  of  the  Theban  alliance.  UI 
will  read  to  you  an  oracle  of  the  gods,  who  always 
protect  the  commonwealth  far  better  than  her  states¬ 
men.” 

Elsewhere  he  tells  the  Athenians  to  confide  in  the 
future:  uWe  have  always  been  more  just  and  pious 
than  Philip.”  Why,  then,  has  he  thus  far  succeeded 
better  than  we  ?  This  objection,  which  the  Athenians 
made  to  the  orator  and  moralist,  recalls  that  of  Louis 
XIY  to  M.  de  Meaux.  The  young  king,  conqueror 
of  Flanders,  invader  of  Holland,  saw  his  least  equit¬ 
able  designs  crowned  with  success;  and  victory  aban¬ 
doned  him  in  the  war  of  Spanish  succession,  when 
he  fought  for  justice  and  his  right.  Providence,  re¬ 
plied  Bossuet,  wished  to  punish  him  for  his  excessive 
love  of  worldly  glory,  and  to  exercise  his  piety.  If 
unjust  Philip  has  succeeded  better  than  you,  replied 
Demosthenes  to  his  contradictors,  it  is  because  he 
manages  his  affairs  with  more  energy  than  you  do. 
UI  see  that  you  have  many  more  claims  than  he  to 
the  support  of  the  immortal  gods.  But  we  must  con. 
fess  that  we  are  inmovable  and  inactive.  How,  who. 
ever  does  not  act  himself,  has  no  right  to  entreat  his 
friends,  still  less  the  gods,  to  aid  him.” 

The  Athenians  were  slow  to  reflect  on  the  principle 
of  harmony  between  merit  and  good  fortune.  Ad- 


RELIGIOUS  SENTIMENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES.  401 


versity  soon  compelled  them  to  implore  the  justice  of 
Providence;  before  suffering,  they  had  little  care  for 
it.  “Justice  is  that  which  is  pleasing  and  useful  to 
the  strong”  ( Gorgias ).  Athens  had  formerly  pro¬ 
fessed  this  doctrine  publicly.  At  the  opening  of  the 
Peloponnesian  war,  when  the  Corinthians  reproached 
them  for  their  selfish  ambition,  their  orators  re¬ 
sponded: 

“We  have  done  nothing  at  which  you  ought  to  be  aston¬ 
ished,  nothing  contrary  to  human  nature  by  accepting  an 
empire  which  was  offered  to  us.  *  *  *  We  are  not  the  first 
to  act  thus;  but  there  is  an  established  law  at  all  times  that 
the  strongest  shall  rule  the  weakest.*  *  *  Considerations 
of  your  own  interests  have  made  you  allege  maxims  of 
justice  which  never  prevented  any  person  from  enlarging  his 
domain  when  opportunity  was  presented  to  acquire  anything 
by  force.” 

This  principle  was  even  more  openly  pleaded  in  the 
conference  which  the  Athenian  deputies  held  with 
the  magistrates  of  Melos  (417),  in  order  to  draw  that 
isle  from  the  Lacedaemonian  alliance.  The  Athenians 
said  to  them: 

“We  must  rely  upon  the  pursuit  of  what  is  possible,  and 
abandon  a  principle  on  which  we  agree,  and  have  nothing  to 
teach  each  other  mutually;  this  is  because,  in  human  affairs, 
we  submit  to  the  rules  of  justice,  when  we  are  constrained 
to  it  by  mutual  necessity.  But  for  the  strong,  power  is  the 
only  rule;  for  the  weak,  submission.” 

The  Melians:  “We  sincerely  hope  that,  with  the 
protection  of  the  gods,  we  will  not  be  inferior  to  you 
in  defending  our  sacred  rights  against  injustice.”  The 
reply  of  the  Athenians  is  curious.  Force  is  of  divine 
right. 


17* 


402 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


“We  also  believe  that  divine  favor  will  not  be  wanting  to 
us,  for  we  demand  nothing,  we  do  nothing,  contrary  to  that 
which  men  attribute  to  the  Divinity  and  claim  for  themselves. 
In  fact,  we  think  that,  by  virtue  of  a  natural  necessity,  the 
gods,  according  to  tradition* * * §  and  men,  manifestly  employ  all 
the  means  in  their  power  to  rule  when  they  are  the  strong¬ 
est.  We  did  not  enact  this  law;  we  are  not  the  first  to 
apply  it;  we  found  it  established,  and  we  will  transmit  it 
after  us,  because  it  is  eternal.  We  profit  by  it,  being  thor¬ 
oughly  convinced  that  no  one,  not  even  yourselves,  if  placed 
in  the  same  condition  of  power,  would  act  differently.”  t 

Power  becoming  equity  is  one  of  tlie  forms  of  fa¬ 
tality.  We  must  submit  to  it  as  to  all  necessary  things. 
“  Mortals  and  immortals,  all  are  subject  to  the  empire 
of  law,  which  establishes  and  legitimatizes  the  most 
extreme  violence  with  its  sovereign  hand.”;};  To  sup¬ 
port  this  article  of  religious  and  moral  faith  Pindar 
cites  the  example  of  Hercules  stealing  the  oxen  of 
Geryon.  Thus  a  legal  crime  is  no  longer  a  crime,  or 
it  is  an  acknowledged  law  of  heaven  and  earth  that 
power  justifies  iniquity.  By  virtue  of  this  eternal  law, 
hereditary  in  Greece,  Melos,  guilty  of  fidelity  to  Lace- 
dæmon,  was  captured  after  heroic  resistance.  Forced 
to  surrender  at  discretion,  she  saw  her  women  and 
children  reduced  to  slavery,  and  all  the  Melians  com¬ 
petent  to  bear  arms  put  to  death;  an  atrocious  ven¬ 
geance,  which  even  at  Athens  found  compassionate 
censors. §  “Everybody  knows  that  all  men,  even 
those  who  have  little  regard  for  justice,  experience  a 
certain  shame  for  not  practicing  it;  but  they  boldly 

*  Jupiter,  stronger  than  Saturn,  dethroned  him  and  sent  him  to 

Italy  to  create  the  golden  age.  (See  Prometheus  of  Æschylus.) 

f  Thucydides,  v,  89,  104,  105  ;  i,  7G.  \  Pindar,  Fragments. 

§  Isocrates,  §  100  ;  Thucydides,  v,  96. 


RELIGIOUS  SENTIMENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES.  403 


rise  up  against  injustice,  especially  if  they  are  per¬ 
sonally  struck.”*  This  shame  was  wanting  to  the 
Athenians  in  the  Peloponnesian  war.  They  auda¬ 
ciously  displayed  iniquities  which  Roman  hypocrisy 
always  carefully  concealed.  In  their  struggles  with 
Philip  they  remembered  justice  and  the  gods  when  it 
was  rather  late.f 

Demosthenes’  mind  generally  seemed  wavering  in 
regard  to  questions  of  religious  morality.  It  is  very 
difficult  for  a  pagan  to  make  his  morality  and  his 
opinions  on  the  gods  harmonize,  and  to  conciliate  the 
logic  of  his  sentiments  with  the  respect  of  whimsical 
and  illogical  dogmas.  During  the  contest,  Demos¬ 
thenes  was  inclined  to  diminish  the  power  of  destiny. 
He  found  it  necessary  to  react  against  the  dispositions 
of  the  Athenians,  who  imputed  all  to  it  and  even 
cravenly  abandoned  themselves  to  it.  When  the  dis¬ 
aster  was  consummated,  he  threw  the  responsibility 
of  it  upon  destiny  alone,  and  no  longer  upon  the  neg¬ 
ligence  of  the  city.  Demosthenes  could  reasonably 
hesitate  between  blind  fortune  and  the  gods,  for  the 
will  of  the  gods  is  obscure,  capricious  and  contradic¬ 
tory.  Before  Salamis  the  priestess  Aristonice  an¬ 
nounced  terrible  misfortunes  to  the  Athenians;  a  short 
time  after  she  gave  them  a  favorable  response.  Did 
the  god,  moved  by  their  despair,  change  his  advice  in 
a  few  days  ?  Hegesippus  went  to  consult  the  oracle 
of  Jupiter  at  Olympia,  then  the  oracle  of  Apollo  at 

*  Demosthenes. 

f  “  When  men  desire  to  avenge  themselves  on  others,  they  delight 
in  abolishing  at  first  the  rules  of  common  right  which  are  appli¬ 
cable  to  the  circumstances,  and  which  always  leave  some  hope  of 
.safety  to  the  unfortunate.  They  thus  deprive  themselves  of  a  guar¬ 
antee  which  they  will  some  day  need  themselves  in  the  hour  of  dan¬ 
ger.”  (Thucydides,  iii,  84.) 


404 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Delphi.  He  desired  to  know  whether  Phoebus  would 
give  the  same  advice  as  his  father.*  “One  god” 
(tiç  Osw Jv)  could  procure  an  advantage  for  the  Athe¬ 
nians,  another  injure  them  according  to  his  particular 
affections.  In  fact,  the  orator  declared  that  he  had 
“often”  experienced  the  fear  which  a  malevolent 
genius  worked  for  their  ruin.  To  the  w'ar  waged 
under  the  walls  of  Troy  corresponded  in  Homer  a 
war  among  the  immortal  gods.  Perhaps  the  gods 
were  thus  divided  in  the  two  camps,  and  some  favored 
Greece,  others  Philip.  The  inhabitants  of  Olympus 
did  not  practice  the  gratuity  of  grace.  They  seldom 
gave  before  receiving;  nevertheless,  they  willingly  fol¬ 
lowed  the  maxim  of  their  own  pleasure:  “  Nothing 
forces  them  to  interest  themselves  in  those  for  whom 
they  care  not.” f  (Cyropædia.) 

The  uncertainty  which  men  felt  as  to  the  nature  and 
affections  of  the  gods  toward  them,  and  the  inconstant 
fortunes  which  they  believed  resulted  from  these  dispo¬ 
sitions,  insensibly  led  them  to  accept  the  predominance 
of  fortune.  Who  could  decide  on  the  victory  or  defeat 
of  the  god  supposed  to  protect  Athens  ?  The  cause 
was  unknown  to  Athens  and  the  city  was  excusable  in 
attributing  it  to  hazard;  at  least  it  was  all  the  same  to 
her.  Demosthenes,  a  sad  witness  of  Philip’s  victories, 
could  sometimes  hesitate  between  blind  fatality  and 
Providence;  but,  except  a  few  moments  of  painful  un¬ 
certainty,  it  seems  to  us  impossible  that  he  whose  death 
was  characterized  by  so  profound  a  religious  feeling, 
did  not  believe  in  divine  justice  and  the  reward  of 
virtue,  as  he  believed  in  its  efficacy  to  secure  success. 

*  Aristotle,  Rhetoric,  i,  15;  ii,  23. 

f  Impious  Alcibiades  lived  happily;  Nicias,  a  model  of  civic  vir¬ 
tue  and  piety,  perished  miserably.  (Thucydides,  vii,  77,  86.) 


RELIGIOUS  SENTIMENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES.  405 


If  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  were  great  orators,  it  is, 
according  to  Châteaubriand’s  opinion,  because  they  were 
extremely  religious.  “They  constantly  had  the  name 
of  the  gods  in  their  mouths.”  We  would  not  dare 
assert  that  Cicero  always  had  them  in  his  heart,  even 
when  he  invoked  them  in  his  most  pathetic  appeals. 
Demosthenes,  a  graver  orator  and  politician  than  the 
jocund  contradictor  of  Cato  (Pro  Murena ),  was  subject, 
by  his  character  and  circumstances,  to  strong  religious 
impressions.  He  was  religious  without  pretense  or 
grimaces;  his  piety  was  exempt  from  prejudices  and 
hypocrisy.  A  priestess,  Theoris,  was  instructing  slaves 
how  to  deceive  their  masters,  and  used  enchantments 
to  dupe  them.  Demosthenes  had  her  condemned  to 
death.  Iiis  hardy  hand,  when  necessary,  could  ransack 
the  sanctuary  and  seize  the  criminals  who  took  refuge 
there.  He  was  not  less  courageous  in  refuting  the 
sophisms  borrowed  from  sacred  things  through  bad 
faith.  Leptines  contends  against  immunities  by  saying 
that  the  people  cannot,  with  justice  to  the  gods,  excuse 
any  person  from  duties  possessing  sacred  obligations, 
a  very  perfidious  (xaxoupyozarov)  argument.  Demos¬ 
thenes  refuted  him.  To  deprive  citizens  of  the  immu¬ 
nities  which  they  enjoy  would  be  an  injustice  which  no 
religious  pretext  could  palliate.  It  is  the  height  of  im¬ 
piety  («<7c ftiffroiTov)  to  legitimatize  an  iniquity  in  the 
name  of  heaven.  What  the  human  conscience  declares 
bad  cannot  be  good  in  the  eyes  of  God.'x' 

Did  Demosthenes  believe  in  oracles  and  auguries  ? 
The  Athenian  masters  of  rhetoric  gave  instruction  how 
to  use  favorable  auguries,  by  virtue  of  the  adage:  Seek 

*  A  sentence  true,  generous  and  worthy  of  a  Christian.  Wliat 
evils  would  be  spared  the  world  if  men  always  protected  themselves 
from  these  false  pretexts  of  religion!  (A.  Wolf.) 


406 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


the  advantageous ,*  and  liow  to  reverse  contrary  augu¬ 
ries.  Demosthenes  respected  oracles  from  which  he 
could  draw  arguments  in  his  favor;  he  omitted,  or  even 
ridiculed  them,  when  they  could  be  turned  against 
him.f  Occasionally  he  essayed  to  turn  the  religious 
opinions  of  his  fellow-citizens  to  the  welfare  of  the 
state.  Whoever  would  act  powerfully  on  men  must  be 
their  superior,  and  at  the  same  time  must  speak  their 
language;  he  must  fascinate  the  minds  of  his  hearers 
in  order  to  penetrate  them.  A  special  messenger  an¬ 
nounced  the  death  of  Philip  to  Demosthenes  before  the 
news  spread  through  the  city.  He  mounted  the  ros¬ 
trum  and  declared  that  he  had  just  had  a  dream,  a 
certain  presage  of  approaching  prosperity.  Presently 
the  official  message  of  the  predicted  event  arrived.  The 
Athenians  for  a  moment  took  courage  and  placed  con¬ 
fidence  in  the  gods.  This  innocent  artifice,  which  Æs- 
cliines  keenly  ridiculed,  recalls  that  of  Pericles.  A 
very  skillful  artist  who  was  working  on  the  Propylæa 
of  the  Acropolis,  fell  from  the  top  of  the  edifice;  the 
physicians  despaired  of  his  life.  Minerva  appeared  to 
Pericles  in  a  dream,  and  prescribed  a  remedy  which 
would  promptly  cure  the  wounded  man,  a  striking  proof 
of  the  sympathetic  interest  which  the  goddess  mani- 

*  Td  (ru ii<p ip ov  ôpâv:  Each  pursues  liis  own  interest;  unity  of 
measures  does  not  exist  ;  they  are  smaller  in  countries  where  the  prod¬ 
uce  is  sold,  and  larger  in  those  where  it  is  purchased.  {Nicomnchean 
Ethics ,  v,  7.) 

f  Four  oracles  are  invoked  in  the  In  Midiam ,  one  in  the  Embassy. 
In  the  oration  On  the  Navy  Boards  he  disdainfully  places  the  makers 
of  oracles  on  the  same  level  as  foolish  orators.  Oracles  were  the  po¬ 
litical  and  spiritual  directors  of  antiquity.  Strong  minds  were  not 
their  dupes.  In  Samothrace,  the  minister  of  the  god,  having  initiated 
Lysander,  ordered  him  to  declare  the  most  crimeful  act  of  his  life. 
“  Who  exacts  this  confession?  —  you  or  the  gods?  The  gods.  Well, 
then,  you  retire:  I  will  answer  them.” 


RELIGIOUS  SENTIMENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES.  407 


fested  in  Pericles’  constructions.  These  fictions  have 
nothing  in  common  with  those  impositions  whose  am¬ 
bition  and  selfish  passion  became  a  weapon,  for  exam¬ 
ple  with  the  religious  stratagem  which  Megacles  and 
Pisistratus  contrived  in  order  to  restore  the  tyrant  to 
his  former  power.* 

Socrates  firmly  believed  in  divination.  Aristotle 
seems  to  have  admitted  its  principle,  but  was  unwilling 
to  accept  all  its  applications.  The  famous  Epimenides 
of  Crete  (a  suspicious  origin  for  a  diviner)  did  not 
predict,  properly  speaking,  the  future;  f  he  had  pre¬ 
sentiments  of  it  by  the  aid  of  inductions  founded  on 
events  which  really  happened,  but  which  were  un¬ 
known  to  others.  This  particular  observation  was 

*  Herodotus,  i,  60  :  “  Megacles,  weary  of  seditions,  negotiated  with 

Pisistratus,  offering  him  his  daughter  in  marriage  and  the  despotism. 

These  conditions  were  accepted.  They  came  to  an  agreement,  and, 

to  execute  their  plans,  they  had  recourse  to  the  grossest  of  stratagems, 

in  my  opinion;  because  in  all  antiquity  the  Greek  nation  has  been 

distinguished  from  the  barbarians  by  its  genius,  which  forms  a  striking 

contrast  to  their  gross  stupidity;  and  now  this  ruse  has  been  employed 

among  the  Athenians,  who  are  considered  the  most  sensible  among  the 

Greeks.  In  the  town  of  Pæania  lived  a  woman  named  Phva.  She 

%/ 

was  nearly  six  feet  in  height  and  of  remarkable  beauty.  They  placed 
her  in  full  armor  upon  a  chariot,  and  made  proclamation  to  the  citi¬ 
zens  that  they  should  welcome  Pisistratus,  whom  Athena  herself  was 
bringing  to  her  own  Acropolis.  They  announced  this  proclamation 
in  all  quarters,  and  the  news  was  spread  among  the  people  that  Mi¬ 
nerva  was  bringing  back  Pisistratus.  The  whole  city  believed  that  this 
woman  was  the  goddess  ;  the  inhabitants  adored  a  mortal  being,  and 
received  Pisistratus.  After  having  recovered  his  power  in  the  man¬ 
ner  just  described,  Pisistratus  espoused  the  daughter  of  Megacles 
according  to  their  agreement.”  This  family  compact  did  not  else¬ 
where  produce  good  fruit.  (Ibidem,  61.) 

f  Rhetoric  iii,  17.  Cf.  To  Euclemus,  ii,  8,  where  the  philosopher 
admits  the  sincerit}r  of  prophetic  enthusiasm.  The  polished  society 
of  the  17th  century  believed  in  soothsayers.  (La  Bruyère,  De  quelques 
usages.) 


408 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GEEECE. 


strengthened  in  the  philosopher  by  the  maxim  that 
diviners  establish  what  they  say  upon  the  past.  Un¬ 
doubtedly  Demosthenes  received  auguries  in  the  same 
manner.  He  respected  divination,  but  not  all  who 
professed  it.  A  pupil  of  Thucydides,*  his  mind  was  as 
free  and  manly  as  his  teacher’s,  and  he  did  not  be¬ 
lieve  all  that  a  vain  people  believed.  He  did  not 
belong  to  the  family  of  Euthyphron,  bnt  to  that  of 
Pericles,  f 

Peligious  feeling,  the  strongest  and  most  elevated 
of  all  sentiments,  often  inspired  the  soul  with  its 
heroism,  and  the  genius  with  his  masterpieces.  An¬ 
cient  and  modern  art  are  indebted  to  it  for  some  of 
their  finest  productions, —  the  Jupiter  and  Minerva  of 
Phidias,  the  Moses  of  Michael  Angelo,  the  Virgins 
of  Raphael.  It  was  paramount  in  all  the  important 
acts  of  the  public  life  of  the  ancients.  Thus  it  is  found 
faithfully  reproduced  where  we  least  expect  it  in  the 
midst  of  Aristophanes’  comedies.  In  the  trial  scene 
of  the  dog  Labes,  scarcely  is  the  religious  rite  an¬ 
nounced,  in  the  opening  of  the  judicial  ceremony, 
when  the  poet  becomes  serious,  Bdelycleon  invokes 
Agyieus  Apollo  and  willing  Pæan  with  a  respectful  and 
touching  gravity.  His  words  are  characterized  by  a 
tenderness  of  filial  piety  and  sympathy  for  the  un¬ 
fortunate.  Religious  faith  also  mingled  in  the  acts 
of  private  life.  The  old  Romans  literally  could  not 
take  a  step  without  the  company  of  a  god.  The  gods 
assisted  man  even  before  his  birth,  and  through  friend- 

*  Thucydides,  ii,  54,  17  ;  v,  103. 

f  Plutarch,  Life  of  Pericles ,  ch.  vi,  35.  The  eclipse  of  the  sun 
and  the  cloak  of  Pericles;  the  ram  with  only  one  horn,  a  marvel 
differently  interpreted  by  Lampo  the  diviner  and  by  Anaxagoras 
the  philosopher.  Cf.  the  prodigy  of  the  prætor  with  horns,  in  Valerius 
Maximus,  v,  G. 


RELIGIOUS  SENTIMENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES.  409 


ship  for  man  they  aided  inanimate  beings  in  the 
different  phases  of  their  existence. 

Religious  feeling  necessarily  followed  the  ancients 
to  the  tribune.  The  Roman  historians  and  orators 
testify  that  it  was  one  of  the  greatest  sources  of  their 
eloquence.*  It  was  the  same  in  Greece.  Stobæus 
has  preserved  from  Euripides  a  fragment  of  remark¬ 
able  impiety: 

“  Do  you  believe  that  iniquities  have  wings  with  which  they 
fly  to  the  Gods,  that  they  are  inscribed  upon  Jupiter’s  regis¬ 
ters,  and  that  he  consults  them  in  order  to  judge  men?  But 
he  would  not  be  able  himself  to  inscribe  all  or  judge  all. 
Justice  is  even  here  on  our  side  for  whoever  may  see  it.” 

Never  would  the  Attic  orators  have  dared  to  offer 
such  insults  to  public  conscience.  They  reminded 
their  hearers  of  the  fear  of  divine  justice:  “It  is 
useless  for  your  suffrages  to  be  secret,  they  will  never 
escape  the  gods  ”  (Demosthenes,  On  the  Embassy). 
The  orator  generally  invoked  them  at  the  opening  of 
his  harangue,  a  tradition  which  the  Peasant  of  the 
Danube  f  never  failed  to  respect.  The  oration  some¬ 
times  closed  as  it  began,  with  an  appeal  both  religious 
and  patriotic.  The  religion  of  patriotism  and  religion 
itself  (we  have  noticed  it  above)  were  confounded  in 
the  hearts  of  the  ancients.  This  joint  responsibility 
was  conspicuous  in  Demosthenes;  in  his  eyes  Philip 
was  the  enemy  of  Athens, —  of  its  soil  and  of  its  gods: 
would  that  the  gods  would  annihilate  him! 

Divinity  is  and  always  will  be  present  in  the  human 
heart  ;  in  prosperity  because  of  happiness  and  thank¬ 
fulness,  but  still  more  in  reverses,  because  of  a  feeling 

*  Titus  Livius,  v,  51;  Cicero,  In  Catilinam,  i,  13;  ii,  13;  De  Sup¬ 
plions,  ch.  lxxii. 

f  Demosthenes,  Exordia ,  25,  50,  54.  ’ Aip  'Eariaq  apyou  {Wasps). 

18 


410 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GEEECE. 


of  li uman  weakness  and  the  salutary  effect  of  suffering. 
It  is  difficult  to  govern  a  people,  especially  an  unfortu¬ 
nate  people,  without  preaching  a  belief  in  divinity.  Is 
it,  then,  surprising  that  religious  feeling  should  have 
animated  the  harangues  of  an  orator  whose  life  was  a 
struggle  against  public  misfortune,  in  the  midst  of 
those  extraordinary  events  which  were  destined  to 
astonish  the  future  ?  Demosthenes  had  more  respect 
for  the  pagan  gods  than  they  deserved  ;  because,  if 
these  fallible  gods  are  doubtful,  divinity  is  not.  Forced, 
to  contend  against  the  Athenian  belief  in  fatality,  and 
to  escape  the  contradictions  imposed  upon  the  moralist 
by  the  opposition  of  pagan  theology,  Demosthenes 
was  less  credulous  and  more  sincerely  religious  than 
the  majority  of  his  contemporaries.  He  had  neither 
the  pretension  nor  the  power  to  sound  impenetrable 
mysteries  ;  but  he  wished  to  conciliate  as  far  as  possi¬ 
ble  belief  in  fortune,  with  faith  in  a  just  providence. 
He  has  assigned  to  destiny  its  proper  place  by  vindi¬ 
cating  the  efficiency  of  human  counsels  and  the  obliga^ 
tion  of  dutv. 

t/ 

“  For  all  men,  Athenians,  there  are  two  essential  advan¬ 
tages.  The  first  and  greatest  of  all  is  to  be  fortunate 
(eu-u/sTv)-  the  second,  less  important  than  the  first,  but 
greater  than  all  others,  is  wise  counsel  (y.alwq  BouÀsôsaOcu). 
*  *  *  Bad  laws  undermine  those  very  republics  which  be¬ 
lieve  themselves  most  impregnable.  In  fact,  the  fortune  of 
nations  would  not  experience  vicissitudes  if,  in  distress,  a 
good  policy,  good  laws,  the  cooperation  of  honorable  men, 
and  a  strict  examination  of  all  things,  conducted  them  to  a 
better  state,  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  neglect  of  all  these 
resources  did  not  insensibly  sap  the  life  of  prosperity  which 
was  apparently  most  stable.  Prudence  in  counsel,  and  that 
vigilance  which  neglects  nothing,  very  often  raises  men  to  a 


RELIGIOUS  SENTIMENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES.  411 


brilliant  fortune;  but  it  is  difficult  for  them  to  pursue  the 
same  path  in  order  to  maintain  themselves  there.  *  *  *  11 

Man  is  therefore,  as  a  whole,  the  architect  of  his 
own  fortune  ;  but  if  he  is  subservient  to  the  power  of 
destiny,  it  is  a  duty  to  himself  that  he  should  not 
decline.  u  The  brave  man  should  always  follow  where 
honor  leads,  covering  himself  with  hope  as  with  a 
shield,  and  nobly  supporting  the  lot  which  Divinity 
has  assigned  him.”  Man  of  Athens,  if  fatality  con¬ 
strains  you,  if  duty  compels  you,  resign  without  falter¬ 
ing. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


jj.7]dè  àXirjOcvœç  ~po<pipz<sOo.i  tov  Xoyov.  Sometimes  Æscliines  fails 
in  moving  power,  because  liis  words  are  neither  convincing  nor  sin¬ 
cere.”  (Hermogenes.) 


I. —  DEMOSTHENES  ACCUSER. 


OLITICAL  activity,  which  was  the  principal  ele- 


JL  ment  of  Athenian  life,  was  not  entirely  extin¬ 
guished  at  Chæronea.  Banished  thereafter  from  the 
Pnyx,  it  took  refuge  in  the  minds  of  those  who  re¬ 
mained  free.  The  great  political  crises  kept  all  eyes 
fixed  upon  state  affairs,  and  heightened  political  pas¬ 
sions.  The  very  children  at  Athens  participated  in 
this  intellectual  agitation.*  They  repeated  in  the 
schools  the  names  of  the  hired  orators  of  Macedonia 
or  the  ordinary  guests  of  the  enemy’s  emissaries. 
They  also  learned,  without  doubt,  how  to  pronounce 
with  respect  the  names  of  those  servants  of  the  com¬ 
monwealth  who  remained  faithful  to  its  hopes  and 
regrets:  hence  we  can  judge  what  interest  the  long 
expected  trial  On  the  Grown  created. 

JEschines  took  care  to  emphasize  the  importance 
which  public  opinion  attached  to  it.  Tie  undertook 
to  overwhelm  Demosthenes  “in  the  face  of  all  the 
citizens  who  surrounded  the  inclosure  of  the  tribunal, 
of  all  the  Hellenes  whose  curiosity  this  judgment  ex- 

*  Kac  to.  -atdi'a  to.  b.  twv  didaffxaAeccuv.  (Hyperides,  Against 
Polyeuctes.) 


412 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


413 


cited, —  the  most  numerous  multitude  that,  in  the  mem¬ 
ory  of  man,  ever  gathered  to  hear  a  public  trial.”  In¬ 
deed,  the  spectacle  was  unique  and  the  conjuncture 
solemn.  The  two  greatest  orators*  in  the  greatest 
trial  were  to  unfold  the  resources  of  their  genius  and 
the  intensity  of  their  enmities.  In  the  course  of  this 
contest  the  two  adversaries  were  to  discuss  the  poli¬ 
tics  of  Athens  with  their  own  acts,  and  to  agitate 
questions  which  had  convulsed  Greece  for  more  than 
twenty  years.  In  the  words  of  Æscliines,  they  were 
to  be  praised  or  hissed  ( 'aopîrrsffOac )  by  the  Hellenes 
in  the  presence  of  the  Athenians;  they  were  to  be 
acquitted  of  all  complicity  with  an  impious  violator 
of  the  general  peace,  or  enveloped  in  his  infamy,  and 
that,  too,  on  the  eve  of  the  Pythian  games  before  the 
assembly  of  all  Greece. 

The  defense  of  Demosthenes  is  his  masterpiece,  and 
at  the  same  time  the  masterpiece  of  the  tribune  and 
the  bar.  Æscliines,  a  worthy  rival  of  Demosthenes, 
has  given  proof  of  a  marvelous  talent;  but  his  art 
lacks  “that  sound  of  a  great  soul”  which  consecrates 
and  carries  the  admiration  of  men  to  its  height. 

Ctesiphon’s  accuser  was  condemned  from  the  first 
to  the  reproach  of  treacherous  malignity. 

“A  citizen  of  word  and  honor  should  not  call  upon  judges 
impaneled  in  the  public  service  to  gratify  his  anger  or  hatred 
or  anything  of  that  kind,  nor  should  he  come  before  you 
upon  such  grounds.  The  best  thing  is  not  to  have  these 
feelings,  but  if  it  cannot  be  helped,  they  should  be  mitigated 
and  restrained.  On  what  occasions  ought  an  orator  and 
statesman  to  be  vehement?  Where  any  of  the  common¬ 
wealth’s  main  interests  are  in  jeopardy,  and  he  is  opposed 

*  Gladiatorum  par  nobilissimum.  (Cicero,  De  Optimo  Geneve  Di- 
cendi ,  cli.  vi,  vii.) 


414 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


to  the  adversaries  of  the  people.  These  are  occasions  for  a 
generous  and  brave  citizen;  but  for  a  person  who  never 
sought  to  punish  me  for  any  offense,  either  public  or  private, 
on  the  state’s  behalf  or  on  his  own,  to  have  got  up  an  accu¬ 
sation  because  I  am  crowned  and  honored,  and  to  have  ex¬ 
pended  such  a  multitude  of  words, —  this  is  a  proof  of  per¬ 
sonal  enmity  and  spite  and  meanness,  not  of  anything  good; 
and  then  his  leaving  the  controversy  with  me  and  attacking 
the  defendant  comprises  everything  that  is  base.” 

The  very  time  which  JEscliines  chose  to  attack  his 
enemy  is  a  proof  of  the  perfidy  of  his  hatred.  Even 
after  the  exemplary  punishment  of  Thebes,  Demos¬ 
thenes,  and  perhaps  some  citizens  as  tenacious  as  he 
to  the  love  of  liberty,  were  able  to  entertain  some 
hope.  And  yet  each  year  was  signalized  by  new 
victories  of  Alexander.  Victorious  at  the  Granicus 
(334),  at  Issus  (333),  he  became  master  of  Asia  Minor, 
of  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean,  of  Tyre  and  of 
Egypt.  Sparta  had  braved  this  ever  increasing  power: 
a  magnanimous  but  sterile  effort.  Agis  had  been 
beaten  and  killed  at  Megalopolis  (330).  At  Vaxos 
and  Tliasos  all  citizens  who  were  hostile  to  the  Mace¬ 
donian  hegemony  were  persecuted.  Vo  longer  was 
a  return  of  fortune  in  favor  of  Greece  to  be  feared. 
Æscliines  then  bursts  forth  against  Demosthenes,  and 
proceeds  formally  to  bring  an  action  against  him  which 
he  had  allowed  to  sleep  for  eight  years.*  The  com 

*  “  It  was  usual  with  the  Athenians,  and  indeed  with  all  the 
Greeks,  when  they  would  express  their  sense  of  extraordinary  merit, 
to  crown  the  person  so  distinguished  with  a  chaplet  of  olive  inter¬ 
woven  with  gold.  The  ceremony  was  performed  in  some  populous 
assembly,  convened  either  for  business  or  entertainment  ;  and  pro, 
clamation  was  made  in  due  form  of  the  honor  thus  conferred,  and 
the  services  for  which  it  was  bestowed. 

“  To  procure  such  an  honor  for  Demosthenes  at  this  particular 
juncture  was  thought  the  most  effectual  means  to  confound  the 


415 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 

demnation  of  tlie  accused  seemed  assured  by  the  in¬ 
disputable  supremacy  of  Alexander.  It  was  to  be 
pronounced  on  the  eve  of  the  Pythian  games:  what 

clamor  of  liis  enemies.  He  bad  lately  been  intrusted  with  tlie  repair 
of  tlie  fortifications  of  Athens,  in  which  he  expended  a  considerable 
sum  of  his  own,  over  and  above  the  public  appointment,  and  thus 
enlarged  the  work  beyond  the  letter  of  his  instructions.  It  was 
therefore  agreed  that  Ctesiphon,  one  of  his  zealous  friends,  should 
take  this  occasion  of  moving  the  senate  to  prepare  a  decree  (to  be 
ratified  by  the  popular  assembly)  reciting  this  particular  service  of 
Demosthenes,  representing  him  as  a  citizen  of  distinguished  merit, 
and  ordaining  that  a  ‘golden  crown’  (as  it  was  called)  should  be 
conferred  upon  him.  To  give  this  transaction  the  greater  solemnity, 
it  was  moved  that  the  ceremony  should  be  performed  in  the  theater 
of  Bacchus,  during  the  festival  held  in  honor  of  that  god,  when  not 
only  the  Athenians,  but  other  Greeks,  from  all  parts  of  the  nation, 
were  assembled  to  see  the  tragedies  exhibited  in  that  festival. 

“  The  senate  agreed  to  the  resolution.  But,  before  it  could  be 
referred  to  the  popular  assembly  for  their  confirmation,  Æscliines, 
who  had  examined  the  whole  transaction  with  all  the  severity  that 
hatred  and  jealousy  could  inspire,  pronounced  it  irregular  and  illegal, 
both  in  form  and  matter,  and  without  delay  assumed  the  common 
privilege  of  an  Athenian  citizen  to  commence  a  suit  against  Ctesi¬ 
phon  as  the  first  mover  of  a  decree  repugnant  to  the  laws,  a  crime  of 
a  very  heinous  nature  in  the  Athenian  polity. 

“  The  articles  on  which  he  founds  his  accusation  are  reduced  to 
these  three. 

“  I.  Whereas  every  citizen  who  lias  borne  any  magistracy  is  ob¬ 
liged  by  law  to  lay  a  full  account  of  his  administration  before  the 
proper  officers,  and  that  it  is  expressly  enacted  that  no  man  shall  be 
capable  of  receiving  any  public  honors  till  this  his  account  hath 
been  duly  examined  and  approved  ;  Ctesiphon  hath  yet  moved  that 
Demosthenes  should  receive  a  crown,  previously  to  the  examination 
of  his  conduct  in  the  office  conferred  upon  him,  and  before  the  pass¬ 
ing  of  his  accounts. 

“  II.  Whereas  it  is  ordained  that  all  crowns  conferred  by  the  com¬ 
munity  of  citizens  shall  be  presented  and  proclaimed  in  their  assem¬ 
bly,  and  in  no  other  place  whatsoever;  Ctesiphon  hath  yet  proposed 
that  the  crown  should  be  presented  and  proclaimed  in  the  theater. 

“  III.  Whereas  the  laws  pronounce  it  highly  penal  for  any  man  to 
insert  a  falsehood  in  any  motion  or  decree  ;  Ctesiphon  hath  yet  ex. 


416 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


éclat  seemed  to  be  assured  for  the  triumph  of  Æs- 
cliines  in  the  humiliation  of  his  rival! 

Æschines  brought  a  claim  of  fifty  talents  (over  $51,- 
000)  against  Ctesiphon.  If  the  hatred  of  Æschines 
were  measured  by  this  sum  it  would  be  found  rather 
strong.  It  animated  the  accuser  to  ruin  Ctesiphon  in 
his  fortune  and  Demosthenes  in  his  honor. 

“  If  one  of  those  poets  whose  tragedies  are  played  after  the 
proclamation  of  public  rewards  presented  in  his  play  Ther- 
sites  crowned  by  the  Greeks,  none  of  you  would  endure  the 
spectacle.  For  Homer  paints  this  ridiculous  personage  as  a 
coward  and  calumniator.  And  do  you,  if  you  crown  modern 
Thersites,  do  you  not  expect  to  be  ridiculed  by  Greece?  ” 

He  flatters  himself  that  he  will  be  allowed  to  prome¬ 
nade  with  his  crown,  upon  an  illustrious  theater  before 
foreigners  and  Hellenes,  in  the  midst  of  the  applause 
of  Bacchic  feasts.  *  *  *  Answer  this  indecent  preten¬ 
sion  by  dishonoring  him  !  The  harangue  of  Æschines 
bears  marks  of  that  smallness  of  soul  ( ptxpoÿuziaç ) 
which  Demosthenes  reveals  in  it.  Demosthenes  de¬ 
lighted  to  remind  the  Athenians  that  in  the  Median 
wars  their  country,  especially  desirous  of  glory,  had 
spent  more  men  and  money  than  all  the  rest  of  Greece. 
Æschines  estimates  what  the  contest  against  the  Mace¬ 
donians  has  cost.  He  accuses  Demosthenes  of  having 
intentionally,  and  by7  venality,  burdened  Athens  with 
the  expenses  of  the  war,  rather  than  Thebes,  her  ally. 
Demosthenes  alone  is  the  author  of  your  evils,  and  of 
the  disasters  of  your  country.  Sacrifice  him,  and  you 
will  be  justified  !  The  baseness  of  Æschines’  real  sen¬ 
timents  refutes  the  nobility  of  his  oratorical  sentiments: 

pressly  declared,  as  the  foundation  of  this  his  decree,  that  the  conduct 
of  Demosthenes  hath  been  ever  excellent,  honorable,  and  highly 
serviceable  to  the  state;  a  point  directly  opposite  to  the  truth.” 
(. Leland .) 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


417 


inviolable  respect  for  the  law,  devotion  to  public 
affairs,  necessity  of  offering  a  striking  lesson  of  moral¬ 
ity  to  the  youth,  love  of  harmony,  homage  to  this 
word,  the  noblest  ever  taught, —  forgiveness;*  venera¬ 
tion  for  the  ancient  heroes,  whose  glorification  by  De¬ 
mosthenes  would  exasperate  their  manes.  .Æscliines 
omits  generous  thought  or  pathetic  feeling  within  an 
orator’s  power.  But  such  is  the  irremediable  vice  of 
bad  faith,  that  it  emerges  and  betrays  the  most  skill¬ 
ful.  f 

Æschines’  malice  pierces  at  every  opportunity. 
The  alliance  with  Thebes  and  Euboea  was  the  double 
triumph  of  Demosthenes’  policy.  Æscliines  consid¬ 
ered  them  grave  wounds,  inflicted  upon  the  Athe¬ 
nians  “without  their  knowledge.”  The  alliance  with 
Euboea,  purchased  by  Callias  of  the  avaricious  De¬ 
mosthenes,  lost  to  the  commonwealth  the  tribute  from 
that  island.  Demosthenes  thereby  gained  three  tal¬ 
ents.  That  alliance  with  Thebes,  so  much  boasted  of, 
was  also  the  fruit  of  his  avidity.  The  Thebans  thought 
of  treating  with  Philip  separately.  Demosthenes  op¬ 
poses  it.  He  cannot  see  them  alone  accept  the  Mace¬ 
donian’s  gold.  Therefore  the  jealousy  which  suggested 

*  To  xdlhiarov  èx  Tzacôscaç  p9j/j.a ,  [j.rj  [jyrjffixaxeu  (forget  evil). 

f  The  oration  Against  Ctcsiphon  contains  proofs  of  charges  against 
Æschines  that  are  honorable  to  Demosthenes.  The  enemies  of  the 
public  peace,  said  Æscliines,  called  Demosthenes  to  the  tribune  by  pro¬ 
claiming  him  the  “only  incorruptible  man”  in  the  city.  No  one 
ever  thought  of  conferring  this  eulogy  on  Æscliines,  even  in  sarcasm. 
Alexander  is  surrounded  in  Cilicia,  threatened  with  ruin  by  the  Per¬ 
sian  cavalry.  Æschines  aptly  describes  Demosthenes’  joy:  Demos¬ 
thenes  holds  in  his  hand,  and  everywhere  shows  the  letter,  a  pleasing 
message.  He  notes  the  down-hearted,  terrified  look  of  Æschines.  He 
calls  him  “the  victim  with  adorned  horns,  already  crowned  to  fall  at 
the  first  reverse  of  Alexander.”  This  is  because  the  friend  of  the 
Macedonians  feared  reverses  which  would  be  the  signal  of  his  ruin. 


418  -  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


to  him  the  thought  of  a  lucrative  reconciliation  of 
the  Boeotians  with  Philip  leads  him  to  urge  them  into 
the  war  ;  and  their  ruin  is  prepared  with  ours.  The 
malignity  of  Æscliines  is  turned  against  himself  when 
he  suggests  improbable  and  contradictory  imputations. 
Demosthenes,  at  first  an  accomplice  of  Philocrates, 
subsecjuently  becomes  his  denunciator.  He  was  jeal¬ 
ous  (C riXoro-Lo.q)  of  seeing  Philocrates  better  paid  than 
himself.  This  ally  of  Philocrates  had,  however,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Æscliines,  a  spy,  Cliaridemus,  with  Philip.  The 
same  Demosthenes  is  guilty  of  blind  hatred  toward 
the  Macedonians,  and  has  secret  intelligence  from 
them.  He  rejoices  at  Alexander’s  dangers,  and  does 
not  profit  by  them.  He  is  reproached  for  Bœotictniz- 
ing ,  and  is  charged  with  the  sack  of  Thebes.  These 
premeditated  calumnies  bring  their  author  into  disre¬ 
pute.  All  injustice  and  base  slander  is  rotten  by  its 
nature  ( aaOpov  and  reveals  its  corruption  some¬ 

where.  {Pro  Corona .) 

A  man  came  to  Demosthenes  to  solicit  his  aid.  He 
said  that  he  had  been  insulted  and  struck.  “  My  friend, 
it  is  not  true  that  you  have  been  struck.”  The  com¬ 
plainant,  raising  his  voice:  u  What,  Demosthenes!  I 
have  not  been  struck!”  “Oh!  now  I  recognize  the 
voice  of  a  man  who  has  actually  been  maltreated.” 
Æscliines  *  had  not  this  accent  of  sincerity.  He  studies 

*  Hermogenes  ( lit  pi  ids à>v,  ii,  11)  lias  well  characterized  Æs- 
cliincs:  He  has  “  eloquence  due  to  the  use  of  artificial  proceedings 
(detvoTrjç  i]  xarà  / 'xiOodov ),  but  lie  is  “sophistical”;  he  aims  at  bom¬ 
bast  and  effect  {yaupoq).  “  Of  oratorical  skill  he  has  a  moderation, 
but  he  has  not  the  character  of  sincerity  to  an  equal  degree.  There¬ 
fore,  notwithstanding  all  the  vehemence  and  severity  which  he  em¬ 
ploys,  he  sometimes  completely  fails  in  moving  power  {zoxov  oodixa 
e/si  *  *  *  èuxtvrjTov),  because  his  words  are  neither  convincing 


THE  TRIAL  OINT  THE  CROWN. 


419 


to  delude;  his  rhetorical  pathos  recalls  his  school  and 
does  not  move  his  hearers.  Conviction  and  truth  in 
emotion  exclude  declamatory  bombast.  uO  Earth!  0 
Heaven  !  O  Yirtue!  and  you,  Intelligence  and  Knowl¬ 
edge,  by  whom  we  discern  the  good  from  the  bad,  I 
have  aided  my  country;  I  have  spoken.”  High-sound¬ 
ing  words,  vainly  cried  out  in  a  tragic  tone.  Equally 
cold  is  the  passage  in  which  measured  antitheses  fail  to 
arouse  indignation  against  Demosthenes  for  rejoicing 
over  Philip’s  death,  seven  days  after  the  death  of  his 
own  daughter.  This  passage  is  admired  by  one  of  the 
interlocutors  of  the  Tusculanœ  Disput ationes,*  and 
judiciously  criticized  by  Plutarch.  ‘  ‘  You  have  not  been 
able  to  see  with  your  eyes  the  ruin  of  the  unfortunate 
Thebans;  see  it  in  your  mind.  Imagine  a  city  taken 
by  assault,  *  *  *  etc.”  These  lamentable  appeals  are 
like  melodramatic  scenes.  Æschines  neither  spares 
inflections  of  the  voice  nor  sobs,  and  yet  he  leaves  us 
cold.  Although  so  clever  a  comedian  *  *  *  at  the 
tribune,  he  has  played  his  rôle  poorly. 

“  What  strikes  me  most  in  the  course  of  his  imputations 
and  falsehoods,  is,  that  in  speaking  of  the  misfortunes  of  the 
city,  he  has  not  shed  a  tear;  he  has  not  in  the  least  felt  in 
his  heart  that  grief  natural  to  a  devoted  and  virtuous  citizen. 
But  he  raised  his  voice  with  a  satisfied  air;  he  cried  out  with 
all  his  might  (Xapuyy(^w^)  ;  he  evidently  believed  that  he  was 
accusing  me,  and  he  gave  proofs,  against  himself,  that  our 
calamities  inspired  him  with  feelings  very  different  from 
yours.” 

{p eTtotOÔTwç)  nor  sincere  ( p.rjôè  Sincerity  (aXyOsia) 

is,  on  the  contrary,  one  of  Demosthenes’  strongest  qualities. 

*  Æschines  in  Demostlicnem  invehitur  *  *  *  et  quam  rlietorice! 
( Tusculanœ  Disputationes ,  iii,  2G.)  This  indiscreet  eulogy  of  Cicero 
might  serve  as  an  epigram  to  the  oration  Against  Ctesiphon. 


420 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Æschines  triumphed  in  these  disasters;  they  were 
so  many  arguments  against  Demosthenes,  and  justifi¬ 
cations  of  the  wise  policy  of  the  ally  of  the  Macedoni¬ 
ans.  Æschines’  eloquence  flows  from  a  happy  and  fer¬ 
tile  imagination;  it  has  the  cleverness  and  impetuosity 
of  hatred.  Demosthenes  draws  his  from  the  bottom 
of  his  heart  ;  he  does  not  move  the  imagination,  he 
moves  the  feelings.  We  feel  in  his  defense  the  accent 
of  an  honorable  man  outraged.  Thanks  to  the  political 
rôle  which  honored  him,  Demosthenes  was  destined  to 
he,  even  as  an  orator,  superior  to  his  adversary. 

One  subject  aids  eloquence  and  creates  it,  another 
renders  it  singularly  meritorious.  An  implicated  client 
is  always  difficult  to  defend.  Now,  no  one  was  ever 
more  implicated  than  wTas  Æschines  in  his  relations 
with  Macedonia,  hence  his  inability  to  establish  the 
justification  which  Demosthenes  demanded  of  him  A 

*  In  a  brilliant  résumé  of  Athenian  history  since  the  Median 
wars, —  a  picture  of  the  alternatives  of  belligerent  passion  and  of 
political  wisdom  in  the  city, —  Æschines  renders  homage  to  the 
memory  of  Cimon,  Andocides  and  Nicias,  peaceful  benefactors  of 
the  democracy.  He  eulogizes  Thrasybulus  and  amnesty,  which  he 
himself  might  greatly  need.  He  flatters  his  audience,  he  insults  his 
accuser.  All  these  tricks  betray  the  agony  of  the  accused,  without 
dispelling  the  imputations  which  press  upon  him.  “  The  people 
were  encouraged  and  recovered  their  strength  (after  the  expulsion  of 
the  Thirty  Tyrants),  and  observe  how  men  were  fraudulently  enrolled 
upon  the  records  of  the  citizens,  a  class  that  always  attract  to  them¬ 
selves  the  worst  part  of  the  state,  because  they  have  no  other  policy 
than  war.  During  peace  they  are  prophets  of  evil.  With  their  words 
they  incite  minds  that  are  eager  for  glory  and  too  ambitious.  Dur¬ 
ing  hostilities  they  are  military  inspectors  and  admirals,  although 
they  have  never  touched  a  sword.  Fathers  of  bastards  born  of  cour¬ 
tesans,  sycophants  buried  in  infamy,  they  precipitate  the  state  into 
the  greatest  dangers.  With  their  adulations  the}*-  caress  the  name  of 
democracy,  and  with  their  conduct  they  outrage  it.  Infringers  of  the 
peace,  which  is  the  support  of  popular  government,  eager  for  war, 
which  is  the  scourge  of  the  state,  they  all  unite  and  now  attack  me. 


THE  TRIAL  OINT  TIIE  CROWN. 


421' 


At  first  the  declared  enemy  of  Philip,  he  suddenly 
became  milder.  He  saw  the  prince,  and  the  hostile 
ambassador  was  immediately  disarmed.  Æscliines 
thus  explains  his  metamorphosis: 

“You  censure  my  embassy  in  Arcadia  and  my  oration  to 
the  Ten  Thousand.  You  accuse  me  of  fickleness, —  you,  a 
fugitive  slave  whom  the  hot  iron  should  have  branded.  Yes, 
during  the  war  I  animated  the  Arcadians  and  the  rest  of  the 
Hellenes  against  Philip,  so  far  as  it  was  in  my  power.  Seeing 
that  no  people  aided  the  commonwealth,  that  some  awaited 
the  issue  of  the  contest  with  indifference,  that  others  were 
marching  with  the  Macedonians  against  us,  that  the  orators 
in  Athens  took  advantage  of  the  war  in  order  to  support 
their  daily  luxury,  I  advised  the  Athenians,  I  confess,  to 
unite  with  Philip  and  to  make  a  peace  which  you  to-day  be¬ 
lieve  shameful,  you  who  never  touched  a  sword.”  * 

In  other  words,  YEscliines  followed  the  torrent.  lie 
did  not  wish  to  be  right  against  the  world.  The  honor 
of  Demosthenes  is  that  he  did  not  yield  to  universal 
enthusiasm: 

S’il  en  demeure  dix,  je  serai  le  dixième, 

Et  sMl  n’en  reste  qu’un,  je  serai  celui-là. 

Demosthenes,  in  order  to  justify  his  own  political 
conduct,  had  to  celebrate  that  of  his  ancestors,  whom 
he  justly  represented.  What  could  the  partisan  of  the 
Macedonian  alliance,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  abdication 
of  Hellenic  liberty,  oppose  to  this  advantage  ?  If  he 

Philip  has,  they  say,  purchased  peace;  he  has  profited  by  negotia¬ 
tions  in  order  to  ruin  us  all.  This  peace,  made  to  his  advantage,  is 
beneficial  to  him  who  has  violated  it;  and  they  accuse  me,  not  as  a 
deputy,  but  as  a  guarantee  of  Philip  and  of  the  peace!  I  merely 
used  words,  and  they  demand  of  me  actions  to  satisfy  their  expecta¬ 
tions!  The  same  orator,  as  I  have  shown,  is  my  panegyrist  in  his 
decrees  and  my  accuser  before  the  court.  We  were  ten  ambassadors, 
and  I  alone  am  prosecuted  for  not  giving  in  accounts!  ” 

*  Embassy ,  §  79. 


422 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


exalts  the  virtues  of  his  ancestors  it  is  to  contrast  them 
with  the  insinuated  crimes  of  Demosthenes,  a  parallel 
in  which  the  bad  faith  of  the  orator  betrays  itself. 
Ordinarily  he  will  have  to  conceal  a  glorious  past 
which  speaks  against  him,  or  ridicule  its  praise  as 
commonplace  and  impotent. 

“  Of  the  united  orators  who  arose,  not  one  essayed  to  save 
the  city,  but  each  called  our  attention  to  the  Propylæa  of 
the  Acropolis,  our  memories  to  the  battle  fought  at  Salamis 
against  the  Persians,  to  the  pictures  and  trophies  of  our  an¬ 
cestors.”  * 

Demosthenes,  in  the  apology  of  his  ministry,  which 
is  that  of  the  heroes  of  Marathon,  is  naturally  mag¬ 
nanimous  and  eloquent.  On  the  contrary,  most  of  the 
beauties  of  AEschines’  oration  will  necessarily  be  artis¬ 
tic  beauties.  Moral  beauty  will  not  easily  find  place 
in  it;  and  also  the  spirit  of  that  political  party  of  which 
he  is  chief,  and  the  character  of  the  thesis  which  he 
defends,  will  appear  artistic. 

AEscliines,  as  an  orator,  was  better  endowed  by 
nature  than  Demosthenes.  It  only  remained  for  him 
to  become  the  first  orator  of  Greece;  he  preferred  to 
enjoy  the  advantages  accruing  from  the  friendship  of 
the  Macedonians.  Demosthenes  snatched  the  palm 
from  him,  in  spite  of  a  natural  inferiority,  because  he 
knew  how  to  hold  his  mind  high,  and  to  draw  the 
powers  of  his  eloquence,  which  has  elevated  him  above 
the  past  and  perhaps  the  future,  from  the  generosity 
of  the  heart.  The  oration  On  the  Crown  is  the  last 

*  Embassy,  §  74;  cf.  Demosthenes,  §  1G.  “You  must,”  said  Æs- 
chines,  “  not  remember  your  ancestors,  nor  listen  to  those  who  recall 
their  naval  victories  and  their  trophies.  He  himself  will  propose 
and  draw  up  a  law  ordaining  that  we  shall  only  aid  the  Hellenes 
who  shall  have  first  aided  you.” 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


423 


effort  of  Attic  eloquence;  “it  realizes  the  ideal  con¬ 
ceived  in  our  minds;  we  can  imagine  nothing  superior 
to  it  ”  (  Orator ,  38). 

II.  PIETY  foWARD  THE  GODS  AND  TOWARD  HIS  COUNTRY. 

“  Api]  yàp ,  coq  yobv  èfi o\  dozsT,  oaa  tcç  rzpdrrst  robq  Osubq 
è-ta>7]riîZa)v,  marbra  <paiv£<jOat,  oïa  p.7]ô'av,  iTz'àvOpWTzao  izpayO&ra , 
novrjpà  ipavzir]  \  A  bad  act  committed  in  tlie  name  of  the  gods 
is  no  more  excusable  than  if  it  rested  on  purely  human  motives.” 
(Demosthenes,  Against  Leptines.) 

Æschines  felt  the  inferiority  of  his  cause,  and 
essayed  to  remedy  it.  It  was  difficult  for  him  to 
derive  advantage  against  Demosthenes  from  his  piety 
toward  his  country;  he  wished  to  supply  this  de¬ 
ficiency  by  piety  toward  the  gods.  He  hoped  to  re¬ 
duce  his  adversary  to  human  aid,  and  then  pierce 
him  with  a  divine  arm.  The  tactics  were  skillful:  the 
moral  state  of  Greece  at  that  epoch  seemed  to  promise 
him  victory.  When  the  ground  trembles,  man  in¬ 
stinctively  raises  his  eyes  toward  heaven.  The  re¬ 
mark  of  Titus  Livius  (v,  51)  will  be  true  in  all  time: 
“Adversity  recalled  the  Romans  to  religious  practices.” 
Brennus  and  Hannibal,  in  their  turn,  revived  the 
feeling  of  divine  power  in  a  people  who  were  indebted 
to  piety  for  their  empire;  vanquishers  of  the  ancient 
Roman  gods,  they  forced  her  to  have  recourse  to 
new  divinities,  even  though  they  should  be  a  black 
stone.  It  is  characteristic  of  great  disasters  to  un¬ 
settle  the  imagination  of  the  people.  Scarcely  had 
France  recovered  from  the  evils  of  the  German  in¬ 
vasion,  when  in  1870  she  gave  proof  of  it,  as  did 
Greece  formerly  when  she  became  a  prey  to  the  Pelo¬ 
ponnesian  war.  In  the  midst  of  the  public  trials, 


424 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE, 


only  a  few  select  minds  resisted  tlie  torrent  of  violent, 
commotions  and  preserved  the  judicious  firmness  of 
a  serene  mind.  The  mass  of  the  nation  was  pro- 
foundly  agitated. 

This  physiological  phenomenon  was  reproduced  dur¬ 
ing  the  Macedonian  epoch.  Greece  became  subservi¬ 
ent  to  a  man  of  Pella,  the  Orient  was  conquered  by 
a  Macedonian  of  thirty  years;  a  sudden  rearrangement 
of  the  surface  of  the  earth;  was  it  possible  that  such 
astonishing"  revolutions  should  not  have  turned  the 
minds  of  men,  more  strongly  than  ever,  toward  di¬ 
vinity  ?  What  other  hand  than  a  divine  hand  could 
have  led  a  few  cohorts  to  such  incredible  success  ? 
These  religious  prejudices  are  found  in  a  curious 
oration  of  Hyperides  in  favor  of  Euxenippus.  The 
Athenians  divided  the  territory  of  Oropus  among  the 
ten  tribes  of  the  city.  After  the  distribution,  it  was 
discovered  that  the  lot  assigned  to  two  tribes  had  been 
consecrated  to  Ampliiaraus.  Piety  forbade  to  dispose 
of  it  without  the  consent  of  the  god.  Euxenippus,  a 
citizen  of  venerable  probity  and  age,  received  the 
mission  to  go,  with  two  companions,  and  sleep  one 
night  in  the  temple  of  Ampliiaraus.  Euxenippus 
obeyed,  and  the  next  day  he  announced  to  the  people 
that  the  lord  of  the  temple  signified  in  a  dream  that 
he  desired  to  remain  in  possession  of  his  territory.  A 
citizen,  who  was  not  convinced  of  the  sincerity  of 
the  dream,  prosecuted  him  on  a  criminal  charge  ac¬ 
cusing  him  of  having  invented  the  dream.  Lycurgus 
spoke  against  the  friend  of  Ampliiaraus;  Hyperides 
defended  him.  Here,  then,  is  a  criminal  action  estab¬ 
lished  on  a  dream,  and  seriously  discussed. 

Similar  inclinations  of  the  mind  explain  the  pages  in 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


425 


which  Diodorus  describes  the  effects  of  celestial  ven¬ 
geance,  not  only  on  the  desecrators  of  Cyrrlia,  but  even 
on  those  who  seconded  them  or  approached  them.  Phi- 
lomelus  precipitates  himself  from  a  rock;  his  brother 
Onomarclius  is  crucified.  Phaillus  dies  of  a  slow  and 
painful  consumption.  (lie  converted  a  portion  of  the 
sacred  treasures  into  money.)  Phalcecus  perished  con¬ 
sumed  in  a  fire  which  was  kindled  from  heaven.  Ilis 
mercenaries  were  killed  or  taken  prisoners;  two  thou¬ 
sand  of  the  latter  were  sold,  and  two  thousand  more 
were  slaughtered  as  accomplices  of  an  impious  man. 
The  wife  of  a  Phocian  chief  had  worn  the  necklace  ot 
Helen, —  she  was  punished  by  an  uncontrollable  lust. 
Another  wife  adorned  herself  with  the  necklace  of  Eri- 
pliyle, — bereft  of  reason,  she  perished  in  the  flames  of 
her  own  house  which  her  own  son  fired.  Chæronea 
was  destined,  at  a  later  day,  to  chastise  the  Athenians, 
and  Alexander  to  sack  Thebes.  “  Thus  all  the  dese¬ 
crators  were  struck  with  divine  vengeance.”  As  to 
Philip,  “lie  returned  to  Macedonia,  leaving  the  Greeks  a 
high  idea  of  his  piety  and  of  his  military  science.  *  *  * 
Philip,  who,  by  the  aid  derived  from  the  oracle  of  Del¬ 
phi,  and  by  his  piety  toward  the  gods,  saw  his  influ¬ 
ence  increase  from  day  to  day,  was  finally  proclaimed 
chief  of  all  Greece,  and  thus  realized  the  grandest  em¬ 
pire  in  Europe.”  Diodorus,  however,  made  this  honest 
remark  on  Philip:  “Being  thus  provided  with  traitors 
in  all  cities,  and  giving  the  title  of  lord  or  friend  to 
whosoever  received  his  gold,  he  corrupted  the  morals 
of  the  human  family  by  his  perverse  principles.”  Jus¬ 
tin,  not  dissimulating  Philip’s  political  perfidy,  thus 
renders  homage  to  his  piety:  “He  alone  chastised  a 
sacrilege  which  the  entire  world  ought  to  have  pun- 
18* 


426  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

islied.  Therefore,  the  avenger  of  the  majesty  of  the 
gods  almost  deserved  to  be  their  equal.”* 

The  Athenians  were  formerly  consulted  by  Iphicrates 
upon  the  disposal  of  the  offerings  which  Dionysius  of 
Syracuse  had  sent  to  Delphi  and  Olympia,  and  they 
answered:  “It  is  better  to  give  attention  to  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  soldiers  than  to  the  affairs  of  the  gods.” 
The  time  was  past  when  the  Athenians  showed  them¬ 
selves  “impious  on  land  and  sea.”  Adversity  inspired 
them  with  the  pious  probity  which  had  formerly  hon¬ 
ored  Nicias,  but  they  believed  that  they  satisfied  divinity 
by  enslaving  themselves  to  superstitions  as  whimsical, 
and  sometimes  as  cruel,  as  those  of  the  contemporaries 
of  the  Sicilian  expedition. 

Philip,  a  prudent  politician,  early  saw  the  advantage 
which  he  could  derive  from  the  religious  prejudices  of 
the  Greeks.  We  have  elsewhere  spoken  of  the  dex¬ 
terity  with  which  he  interfered  in  the  first  sacred  war 
of  Pliocis  (the  pillage  of  Delphi  by  Philomelus),  and 
in  the  second  crusade  against  Amphissa.  Even  Æs- 
cliines  himself,  who  was  an  associate  of  Philip,  could 
not  refrain  from  invoking  the  heavens  against  the  ad¬ 
versaries  of  the  Macedonian  party;  popular  prejudice 
and  youthful  remembrances  urged  him  to  it.  Born  of 
poor  parents,  he  saw  his  own  mother  follow  the  profes¬ 
sion  of  initiations  (reA iarpia)  among  the  mob.  These 
religious  practices  were  a  private  counterfeiting  of  the 
official  Eleusinian  mysteries,  and  bordered  upon  jug¬ 
glery.  HEscliines  played  his  part  in  them.  He  was 
handsome  and  well  formed;  he  had  a  fine  voice;  this 
was  sufficient  to  contribute  to  the  success  of  the  mater¬ 
nal  ceremonies,  and  to  make  tarts  and  cakes  pour  into 

*  J ustin ,  viii,  2.  These  two  authors  are  evidently  the  echoes  of  the 
historians  of  the  Macedonian  epoch. 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


427 


the  mystic  basket.  “The  amphora  long  preserves  the 
odor  with  which  the  first  days  impregnated  it.”  The 
political  orator  Æschines  preserved  the  impressions  of 
his  youth.  A  servant  in  the  initiation,  afterward  an 
actor,  he  was  prepared  by  this  double  education  for  the 
role  which  he  played  in  the  trial  On  the  Grown ,  and 
which  has  won  for  him,  from  the  lips  of  Demosthenes, 
this  homage,  that  he  was  an  excellent  comedian  (5-ox- 

fnzr^Ç  apiffToG)- 

Aristotle  recommends  this  artifice  to  the  despot  who 
is  desirous  of  strengthening  his  power: 

“  The  tyrant  ought  to  make  a  show  of  an  exemplary  piety. 
Men  fear  less  the  injustice  of  a  man  whom  they  believe  de¬ 
voted  to  the  service  of  the  gods  (deMTtdatjiova.),  and  they  dare 
less  to  conspire  against  him,  because  they  suppose  the  very 
heaven  is  his  ally.  The  tyrant,  however,  ought  to  beware 
of  continuing  these  appearances  down  to  a  ridiculous  super¬ 
stition.” 

These  maxims  are  perhaps  an  allusion  to  the  Mace¬ 
donian  king;  at  all  events  they  apply  to  him  in  every 
respect.  By  taking  in  hand  the  cause  of  the  gods, 
Philip  gained  his  own.  Æschines  certainly  aided  him. 
When  he  announced  in  the  popular  assembly  the  con¬ 
demnation  which  the  Amjdiietyonic  council  had,  at 
his  instigation,  pronounced  against  the  Locrians  of 
Amphissa,  Demosthenes  cried  out:  “Æschines,  you 
are  carrying  the  war  into  the  heart  of  Attica, —  a  sacred 
war!  ”  After  the  enslavement  of  Greece,  Æschines 
was  not  anxious  to  claim  such  a  work;  it  was  more 
convenient  for  him  to  attribute  the  disastrous  inter¬ 
vention  of  Philip  and  the  public  ruin  to  his  rival’s 
impiety:  At  your  advice,  Demosthenes,  Athens  re¬ 
fused  to  accept  the  “hegemony  of  piety,”  the  pro¬ 
tectorship  of  religion.  The  defense  of  the  gods,  which 


428 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


you  rejected,  fell  to  tlie  Macedonian  king;  you  alone 
are,  therefore,  responsible  for  liis  successes  and  our 
misfortunes. 

Æschines,  considered  in  his  private  life,  was  an 
epicurean  gallant.  He  revealed  the  innocence  of  his 
manners,  and  did  not  seem  to  use  the  permitted 
licenses  of  his  time  to  their  fullest  extent.  And  yet 
he  was  not  a  stranger  to  them.  A  defender  of  Timar- 
chus  reproached  him  for  his  severity  toward  this 
person:  Was  not  Æscliines  himself,  a  constant  at¬ 
tendant  of  the  gymnasium,  in  some  respects  reproach 
able  ?  It  may  be  judged  from  AEschines’  own  con¬ 
fessions.  He  neither  disowns  the  amatory  verses, 
with  which  his  adversary  endeavors  to  delight  the 
audience,  nor  the  injuries  and  blows  which  his 
gallantry  often  won  for  him:  UI  have  loved,  I  confess, 
and  I  still  love;  I  have  had  quarrels,  and  I  have 
fought,  I  do  not  deny  it.  But  to  love  a  beautiful  and 
modest  object  is  the  mark  of  a  tender  and  well-disposed 
heart  (< pdavOpu-ou ).”  Æscliines  believed  that  he  could 
cultivate  this  form  of  philanthropy  and  preserve  the 
dignity  necessary  to  become  a  serious  instructor  of 
the  youth.  An  easy  life  did  not  exclude  piety  among 
the  ancients.* 

In  other  respects,  the  devout  Æschines  sometimes 
profited  by  his  epicurean  maxims.  He  wrote  these 
lines,  which  Cicero  imitated  three  times,  and  which 
are  indeed  worthy  of  a  philosopher  above  all  preju¬ 
dices: 

“  Do  not  believe,  Athenians,  that  great  catastrophes  have 
their  origin  in  the  wrath  of  the  gods,  and  not  in  the  per- 

*  The  courtesan  Rhodope  wished  to  leave  at  the  temple  of  Delphi 
a  memento  of  her  piety:  an  offering  of  iron  spits  to  roast  beef,  and 
representing  one-tenth  of  her  property.  (Herodotus,  ii,  134,  135.) 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


429 


versity  of  men;  nor  that  the  crimeful  are  pursued  and 
chased  by  Furies,  armed  with  burning  torches,  as  we  see  them 
in  tragedies:  the  unbridled  love  of  pleasure,  insatiable  lust, 
these  are  the  Furies  of  criminals.  No  regard  for  their  honor, 
no  fear  of  punishment  moves  them;  but  the  hope  of  success, 
the  appetite  for  enjoyments,  fascinate  and  allure  them.”  * 

Æschines  here  speaks  like  Lucretius,  and  even  touches 
upon  horrors  which  the  poet  detested.  Does  he 
actually  believe  in  the  pious  motives  with  which  he 
arms  himself  against  Demosthenes  ?  The  bad  faith, 
abundant  proofs  of  which  are  in  his  oration,  invites 
our  doubts;  but  a  perfidious  consideration  encourages 
him. 

The  accusation  of  impiety  was  one  which  the  frivo¬ 
lous  Athenians  always  took  seriously.  We  know  how 
they  amused  themselves  with  their  gods  at  the  theater. 
Modern  men  would  prefer  to  deny  the  Divinity  rather 
than  suppose  it  vicious.  The  Athenians  permitted  the 
most  ridiculous  defamation  to  enter  Olympus.  Mock 
and  traduce  the  gods  at  your  ease,  but  do  not  deny 
them.  Do  not  give  them  new  colleagues  without  the 
consent  of  the  state.  Protagoras  saw  his  books  burned 
and  himself  banished  by  the  Areopagus;  Diagoras  of 
Melos  was  declared  an  outlaw;  Anaxagoras  was  thrown 
into  prison;  Prodicus  of  Ceos  was  condemned  to  drink 
the  hemlock,  like  Socrates  the  Melian  (according  to 
the  perfidiously  spiritual  allusion  of  Aristophanes.) 
Even  the  women  were  not  spared.  Pericles  had  to 
move  the  people  by  his  tears  in  order  to  save  Aspasia. 
Eutliias,  a  lover  of  Pliryne,  either  through  cupidity  or 
spite,  accused  this  courtesan  of  introducing  “a  new 
god.”  The  clientess  of  Ilyperides  owed  her  safety 
solely  to  a  pious  scruple  of  the  judges;  when  they 

*  Against  Timarchus,  §  190. 


430 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


recognized  her  beauty,  they  feared  to  ofïend  the  gods 
by  condemning  a  priestess  of  Y enus. 

The  religious  susceptibilities  of  Athens  offered  for¬ 
midable  arguments,  and  Æschines,  who  wished  to  in¬ 
duce  the  people  to  condemn  Demosthenes,  made  him¬ 
self  represent  the  people  and  cried  out  against  impiety. 
Demosthenes’  whole  life  is  impious.  Under  the  pre¬ 
text  of  repairing  the  walls  of  Athens  he  has  destroyed 
the  public  tombs.  He  dares  accuse  the  ambassador 
with  whom  he  partook  of  the  repast  at  the  Prytaneum. 
“This  barbarian  *  *  *  sacrifices,  libations,  fraternity 
around  the  table, — nothing  checks  him.”  He  deliv¬ 
ered  to  punishment  his  guest,  the  Oritanian  Anaxinus, 
an  honest  merchant  who  was  innocently  trading  in 
Greece  for  Olympias.  “To  the  salt  of  the  hospitable 
table  I  prefer  the  salt  of  our  native  land.”  Demos¬ 
thenes  takes  pride  in  this  shameless  confession.  He 
insults  Pythia,  he  derides  the  oracles,  he  ridicules 
Alexander  for  venerating  sacred  things.*  He  advised 
Chæronea,  “notwithstanding  contrary  presages.”  He 
esteemed  more  than  all  other  auguries  that  which 
Hector  preferred:  “The  best  augury  is  to  fight  for 
our  country.  ”f  We  embrace  the  cause  of  Priam’s 
son,  condemned  by  heaven  to  succumb  under  the  di¬ 
vine  arms  of  Achilles.  Æschines  rallies  to  the  cause 
of  the  gods,  whom  Demosthenes  has  outraged. 

The  pages  in  which  this  engine  of  war  is  put  into 
play  constitute  the  finest  passages  of  his  oration.  The 
aggressor  is  there  intrenched  as  in  an  impregnable  fort. 


*Æscliines  ascribes  these  words  to  him:  “This  Margites  will  not 
stir  from  Macedonia.  He  prefers  to  promenade  at  Pella,  and  there 
to  consult  the  entrails  of  victims.”  ( Against  Ctesiphon ,  §  1G0.)  Alex¬ 
ander  was  indeed  superstitious,  according  to  Plutarch.  ( Life  of  Alex¬ 
ander,  7 .3-75.) 

\  Iliad,  xii,  243. 


THE  TRIAL  OH  THE  CROWH. 


431 


Let  us  follow  him  there.  Cyrrha,  on  the  gulf  of  Crissa 
in  Pliocis,  was  early  the  seaport  of  Delphi.  Enriched 
by  the  numerous  pilgrimages  made  to  the  temple  of 
Apollo,  the  Cyrrhæans  had  excited  the  jealousy  of  the 
neighboring  cities.  They  were  accused  of  avidity  and 
extortions  from  strangers,  who  were  the  pious  visitors 
of  the  god.  In  the  first  Sacred  War  (590)  Cyrrha  was 
destroyed  and  its  territory  consecrated  to  Apollo  ; 
however,  as  a  harbor  was  necessary  to  shelter  the 
visitors  of  the  sanctuary,  the  Locrians  of  Amphissa, 
neighbors  of  Cyrrha,  had  it  rebuilt  and  repeopled. 
The  liberality  of  the  faithful  was  not  long  in  enrich¬ 
ing  the  city,  which  was  unduly  raised  on  its  ruins; 
and  boldness  increased  with  its  prosperity  to  such  an 
extent  that  its  new  inhabitants  tilled  a  part  of  the 
fields  which  the  Amphictyonie  council  had  condemned 
to  sterility.  Such  was  the  beginning  of  the  second  Sa¬ 
cred  War  and  of  the  disastrous  intervention  of  Philip. 
We  give  the  words  of  his  voluntary  or  imprudent  aux¬ 
iliary,  Æscliines. 

“  There  is  a  plain,  Athenians,  well  known  by  the  name  of 
Cyrrha,  and  a  port  now  called  the  devoted  and  accursed. 
This  tract  the  Cyrrhæans  and  Acragallidæ  inhabited,  a  law¬ 
less  people,  whose  sacrilegious  violence  profaned  the  shrine 
of  Delphi  and  the  offerings  there  deposited,  and  who  pre¬ 
sumed  to  rebel  against  the  Amphictyonie  council.  The  Am- 
phictyons  in  general,  and  your  ancestors  in  particular  (as 
tradition  hath  informed  us),  conceived  the  justest  resent¬ 
ment  and  addressed  themselves  to  the  oracle,  in  order  to  be 
informed  by  what  punishment  they  might  suppress  these 
outrages.  The  priestess  pronounced  her  answer,  that  they, 
were  to  wage  perpetual  war  against  the  Cyrrhæans  and 
Acragallidæ  without  the  least  intermission,  either  by  day  or 
night;  that  they  were  to  lay  waste  their  lands,  and  to  reduce 


432 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GEEECE, 


tlieir  persons  to  slavery;  that  their  possessions  were  to  he  set 
apart  from  all  worldly  purposes,  and  dedicated  to  the  Pythian 
Apollo,  to  Diana,  to  Latona,  and  to  Minerva;  and  that  they 
were  not  to  cultivate  their  lands  nor  to  suffer  them  to  be 
cultivated.  In  consequence  of  this  oracle  the  Amphictyons 
decreed,  and  Solon  the  Athenian  was  the  first  mover  of  this 
decree  (the  man  so  eminent  for  making  laws,  and  so  conver¬ 
sant  with  the  arts  of  poesy  and  philosophy),  that  they  should 
take  up  arms  against  these  impious  men,  in  obedience  to  the 
divine  commands  of  the  oracle.  A  sufficient  force  being  ac¬ 
cordingly  raised  by  the  Amphictyons,  they  reduced  these  men 
to  slavery,  demolished  their  harbor,  razed  their  city,  and  con¬ 
secrated  their  district,  as  the  oracle  directed.  And  to  con¬ 
firm  these  proceedings,  they  bound  themselves  by  an  oath 
that  they  would  never  cultivate  this  consecrated  land  nor 
suffer  others  to  cultivate  it;  but  that  they  would  support  the 
rights  of  the  god  and  defend  this  district  thus  consecrated 
with  their  persons  and  all  their  power.  Nor  were  they  con¬ 
tented  to  bind  themselves  by  an  oath  conceived  in  the  usual 
form  ;  they  enforced  it  by  the  addition  of  a  most  tremendous 
imprecation.  Thus  it  was  expressed:  ‘If  any  shall  violate 
this  engagement,  whether  city  or  private  person  or  com¬ 
munity,  may  such  violators  be  devoted  to  the  vengeance  of 
Apollo,  of  Diana,  of  Latona,  and  of  Minerva;  may  their 
lands  never  yield  their  fruits;  may  their  women  never  bring 
forth  children  of  the  human  form,  but  hideous  monsters; 
may  their  herds  be  accursed  with  unnatural  barrenness;  may 
all  their  attempts  in  war,  all  their  transactions  in  peace,  be 
ever  unsuccessful!  may  total  ruin  forever  pursue  them,  their 
families,  and  their  descendants!  and  may  they  never  [these 
are  the  very  terms]  appease  the  offended  deities,  either  Apollo 
or  Diana  or  Latona  or  Minerva,  but  may  all  their  sacrifices 
be  forever  rejected!’  To  confirm  the  truth  of  this  let  the 
oracle  be  read.  Listen  to  the  imprecations  and  call  to  mind 
the  oath  by  which  your  ancestors  were  engaged  in  conjunc¬ 
tion  with  the  other  Amphictyons. 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


433 


THE  ORACLE. 

Still  shall  these  tow’rs  their  ancient  pride  maintain, 

Nor  force  nor  valor  e’er  their  rampart  gain, 

Till  Ampliitritè,  queen  of  azure  waves, 

The  hallow’d  lands  of  sov’reign  Phoebus  laves; 

Till  round  his  seat  her  tlireat’ning  surges  roar, 

And  burst  tumult’ous  on  the  sacred  shore. 

THE  OATH. - THE  IMPRECATION. 

“  Yet,  notwithstanding  these  imprecations,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  solemn  oath  and  the  oracle,  which  to  this  day  remain 
upon  record,  did  the  Locrians  and  the  Ampliissæans,  or,  to 
speak  more  properly,  their  magistrates,  lawless  and  aban¬ 
doned  men,  once  more  cultivate  this  district,  restore  the  de¬ 
voted  and  accursed  harbor,  erect  buildings  there,  exact  taxes 
from  all  ships  that  put  into  this  harbor,  and  by  their  bribes 
corrupt  some  of  the  pylagoræ*  who  had  been  sent  to  Delphi, 
of  which  number  Demosthenes  was  one;  for,  being  chosen 
into  this  office,  he  received  a  thousand  drachmas  from  the 
Ampliissæans  to  take  no  notice  of  their  transactions  in  the 
Amphictyonie  council.  And  it  was  stipulated  still  further, 
that  for  the  time  to  come  they  should  pay  him  at  Athens  an 
annual  sum  of  twenty  minæ  out  of  their  accursed  and  de¬ 
voted  revenues,  for  which  he  was  to  use  his  utmost  efforts, 
on  every  occasion,  to  support  the  interest  of  the  Ampliissæans 
in  this  city,  a  transaction  which  served  but  to  give  still 
further  evidence  to  this  melancholy  truth,  that,  whenever  he 
hath  formed  connections  with  any  people,  any  private  per¬ 
sons,  any  sovereign  magistrates,  or  any  free  communities,  he 

*  The  Amphictjmnic  council  was  composed  of  three  kinds  of  dep¬ 
uties:  first,  the  Pylagorœ,  or  orators  of  the  assembly  of  Pylæ  (the 
Ampliictyons  met  at  Thermopylæ  in  autumn  and  at  Delphi  in  the 
spring);  second,  the  hieronineinones ,  or  guardians  of  the  sacred  ar¬ 
chives.  The  council  was  presided  over  by  an  hieromnemon.  Each 
Amphictyonie  people  sending  an  hieromnemon  to  the  diet  had,  in 
its  turn,  the  honor  of  presiding.  Third,  the  theori.  The  tlieori  were 
deputies  at  Delphi  to  consult  the  oracle. 

19 


434 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


liatli  never  failed  to  involve  them  in  calamities  the  most  de¬ 
plorable.  For,  now,  behold  how  Heaven  and  fortune  as¬ 
serted  their  superior  power  against  this  impiety  of  the  Am- 
pliissæans  ! 

“  In  the  archonship  of  Theophrastus,  when  Diognetus  was 
iëromnemon,  you  chose  for  pylagoræ  Midias  *  (that  man  who 
on  many  accounts  I  wish  were  still  alive)  and  Thrasycles, 
and  with  these  was  I  joined  in  commission.  On  our  arrival 
at  Delphi  it  happened  that  the  iëromnemon  Diognetus  was 
instantly  seized  with  a  fever,  and  that  Midias  also  shared  the 
same  misfortune.  The  other  Amphictyons  assembled,  when 
some  persons,  who  wished  to  approve  themselves  the  zealous 
friends  of  this  state,  informed  us  that  the  Amphissæans,  now 
exposed  to  the  power  of  the  Thebans,  and  studious  to  pay 
them  the  most  servile  adulation,  had  introduced  a  decree 
against  this  city7",  by  which  a  fine  of  fifty  talents  was  to  be 
imposed  on  the  community  of  Athens,  because  we  had  de¬ 
posited  some  golden  shields  in  the  new  temple,  before  it  had 
been  completely  finished,  which  bore  the  following,  and  a 
very  just  inscription: 

“‘By  the  Athenians:  taken  from  the  Medes  and  Thebans 
when  they  fought  against  the  Greeks.’ 

“  The  iëromnemon  sent  for  me  and  desired  that  I  should 
repair  to  the  Amphictyons  and  speak  in  defense  of  the  city, 
which  I  had  myself  determined  to  do.  But  scarcely  had  I 
begun  to  speak  on  my  first  appearance  in  the  assembly  (where 
I  rose  with  some  warmth,  as  the  absence  of  the  other  depu¬ 
ties  increased  my  solicitude),  when  I  was  interrupted  by  the 
clamors  of  an  Amphissæan,  a  man  of  outrageous  insolence, 
who  seemed  a  total  stranger  to  politeness,  and  was,  perhaps, 
driven  to  this  extravagance  by  some  evil  genius.  He  began 
thus:  ‘Ye  Greeks,  were  ye  possessed  with  the  least  degree  of 
wisdom,  ye  would  not  suffer  the  name  of  the  Athenians  to 

*  This  Midias  was  the  man  who  struck  Demosthenes;  hence  the 
deep  regrets  of  Æschines. 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


435 


be  mentioned  at  this  time;  ye  would  drive  them  from  the 
temple  as  the  objects  of  divine  wrath.’  He  then  proceeded 
to  take  notice  of  our  alliance  with  the  Phocians,*  which  the 
decree  of  Crobylus  had  formed,  and  loaded  the  state  with 
many  other  odious  imputations,  which  I  then  could  not  hear 
with  temper,  and  which  I  cannot  now  recollect  but  with  pain. 
His  speech  inflamed  me  to  a  degree  of  passion  greater  than 
I  had  ever  felt  through  my  whole  life.  Among  other  par¬ 
ticulars,  on  which  I  shall  not  now  enlarge,  it  occurred  to 
me  t  to  take  notice  of  the  impiety  of  the  Ampliissæans  with 
respect  to  the  consecrated  land,  which  I  pointed  out  to  the 
Amphictyons  from  the  place  where  I  then  stood,  as  the  tem¬ 
ple  rose  above  the  Cyrrhæan  plain  and  commanded  the  whole 
prospect  of  that  district.  4  You  see,’  said  I,  4  ye  Amphictyons, 
how  this  tract  hath  been  occupied  by  the  people  of  Amphissa. 
You  see  the  houses  and  factories  they  have  there  erected. 
Your  own  eyes  are  witnesses  that  this  accursed  and  devoted 
harbor  is  completely  furnished  with  buildings.  You  your¬ 
selves  know,  and  need  not  any  testimony,  that  they  have 
exacted  duties  and  raised  large  sums  of  wealth  from  this 
harbor.’  I  then  produced  the  oracle,  the  oath  of  our  an¬ 
cestors,  and  the  imprecation  by  which  it  was  confirmed,  and 
made  a  solemn  declaration  that,  4  for  the  people  of  Athens, 
for  myself,  for  my  children,  and  for  my  family,  I  would  sup¬ 
port  the  rights  of  the  God  and  maintain  the  consecrated  land 
with  all  my  might  and  power,  and  thus  rescue  my  country 
from  the  guilt  of  sacrilege.  Do  you,  ye  Greeks,’  thus  did 
I  proceed,  4  determine  for  yourselves  as  ye  judge  proper. 
Your  sacred  rites  are  now  prepared,  your  victims  stand  be¬ 
fore  the  altars;  you  are  ready  to  offer  up  your  solemn  prayers 

*  This  alliance  was  culpable  in  the  eyes  of  the  Ampliissæan,  be- 
cause  the  Phocians  had  formerly  pillaged  the  treasury  of  Delphi. 

f  Æscliines  did  not  dare  say  that  a  god  inspired  him  with  this 
thought,  as  the  gods  undoubtedly  suggested  to  the  Ampliissæan  his 
injurious  sally.  lie  left  his  hearers  to  suppose  it.  Was  not  the 
thought  rather  a  souvenir  of  his  engagements  with  Philip? 


436 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


for  blessings  on  yourselves  and  on  your  countries;  but  0! 
consider,  with  what  voice,  with  what  front,  with  what  con¬ 
fidence,  can  3^ou  breathe  out  your  petitions  if  ye  suffer  these 
sacrilegious  men,  thus  devoted  and  accursed,  to  escape  with 
impunity!  The  imprecation  is  not  conceived  in  dark  or 
doubtful  terms.  No;  the  curse  extends  not  only  to  these 
impious  profaners,  but  to  all  those  who  suffer  their  profana¬ 
tion  to  pass  unrevenged.  These  are  the  very  words  with 
which  the  awful  and  affecting  form  is  closed:  ‘May  they 
who  permit  them  to  escape  unpunished  never  offer  up  an 
acceptable  sacrifice  to  Apollo,  or  to  Diana,  or  to  Latona,  or 
to  Minerva;  but  may  all  their  devotions  be  rejected  and 
abhorred  ! ’ 

“  When  I  had  urged  these,  and  many  other  particulars,  I 
retired  from  the  assembly,  when  a  considerable  clamor  and 
tumult  arose  among  the  Amphictyons;  and  the  debate  was 
now  no  longer  about  the  shields  which  we  had  dedicated,  but 
about  the  punishment  due  to  the  Amphissæans.  Thus  was  a 
considerable  part  of  that  day  wasted,  when  at  length  a  herald 
arose  and  made  proclamation  that  all  the  inhabitants  of 
Delphi  above  the  age  of  sixteen,  both  slaves  and  freemen, 
should,  the  next  morning  by  sunrise,  assemble  in  the  adjoin¬ 
ing  plain,  called  the  ‘  plain  of  victims,’  with  spades  and  mat¬ 
tocks;  and  by  another  proclamation  it  was  ordained  that  the 
representatives  of  the  several  states  should  repair  to  the  same 
place  to  support  the  rights  of  the  god  and  the  consecrated 
land;  and  that,  if  any  representatives  should  disobey  this 
summons,  their  state  was  to  be  excluded  from  the  temple,  as 
sharing  in  the  sacrilege  and  involved  in  the  imprecation. 
The  next  day  we  accordingly  repaired  to  the  place  appointed, 
from  whence  we  went  down  to  the  Cyrrhæan  plain;  and 
having  there  demolished  the  harbor,  and  set  fire  to  the  build¬ 
ings,  we  retired.  During  these  transactions  the  Locrians  of 
Amphissa,  who  are  settled  at  the  distance  of  sixty  stadia  from 
Delphi,  assembled  in  arms,  and  fell  upon  us  with  their  whole* 
force;  and,  had  we  not  with  difficulty  gained  the  town  by  a. 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


437 


precipitate  flight,  we  must  have  been  in  clanger  of  total 
destruction.” 

It  would  be  inaccurate  to  say  that  antiquity  never 
experienced  religious  wars.*  Never  did  the  most 
ardent  leaguers  feel  or  express  religious  fanaticism 
more  strongly.  Certain  traits  of  this  passage  recall 
the  severity  of  the  prophets  of  ancient  law  against  the 
enemies  of  Jehovah.  “Take  the  little  children  of  the 
Philistines  and  dash  their  heads  against  the  stones.” 
The  author  of  the  /Soirées  de  Saint  Pctersburgh  was 
not  moved  by  piety  in  the  face  of  these  inhuman  aber¬ 
rations.  Æs  chin  es  undoubtedly  despised  them  in  his 
heart,  but  he  wished  to  take  vengeance  on  Demosthe¬ 
nes,  and  he  made  the  most  of  them. 

*  Rome  did  not  experience  them,  but  she  had  not  the  perfect  toler 
ance  that  Voltaire  has  attributed  to  her  by  sometimes  forcing  the 
texts.  (Cf.  Philosophie  de  V Histoire  et  Essai  sur  les  Mœurs.)  It  is  proper 
to  distinguish  their  beliefs  and  their  worship.  The  Romans  disre¬ 
garded  the  religious  doctrines  of  foreigners.  They  themselves  had 
none  at  all.  For  the  absent  dogma  they  substituted  formulas,  a  rit¬ 
ual,  and  ceremonies  very  definite  in  the  minutest  details.  The  frag¬ 
ments  of  Fabius  Pictor’s  work  on  the  rites  of  Rome  are  very  expressive 
in  this  respect.  The  flamen  of  Jupiter  was  forbidden  to  ever  touch 
or  name  a  dog,  a  slie-goat,  ivy,  beans  or  raw  flesh,  or  to  remain  out  of 
his  house  three  consecutive  nights.  A  certain  ceremonial  accompa¬ 
nied  the  cutting  of  his  hair  and  nails.  The  legs  of  his  bed  were 
smeared  with  fine  clay.  He  was  forbidden  to  be  in  open  air  without 
‘  his  bonnet,  etc.  *  *  *  The  heretics  of  Rome  were  the  impious  who 
violated  these  prescriptions,  or  others  of  like  import.  The  Romans, 
indifferent  about  doctrine,  made  an  attempt  at  the  liberty  of  con. 
science  as  soon  as  they  departed  from  the  formalism  of  the  religion  of 
the  state.  This  religion,  it  is  true,  was  hospitable,  and  welcomed  all 
the  gods  to  which  the  senate  had  accorded  the  investiture.  The 
other  gods  and  their  followers  were  severely  proscribed.  The  repub, 
lie  and  the  empire  pursued  all  foreign  unrecognized  gods  officially, 
before  declaring  a  war  of  extermination  on  the  god  of  the  Christians. 
They  were  never  as  tolerant  as  the  authors  wish  to  convey  in  such 
works  as  Cicero’s  De  Divinatione. 


438 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


“  On  the  succeeding  day  Cattyphus,  who  acted  as  president 
of  the  council,  summoned  a  ‘  convention  ’  of  the  Amphic- 
tyons;  so  they  call  an  assembly,  formed  not  only  of  the  rep¬ 
resentatives,  but  of  all  who  came  to  offer  sacrifice,  or  consult 
the  oracle.  In  this  convention  many  accusations  were  urged 
against  the  Amphissæans,  and  much  applause  bestowed  on 
our  state.  The  whole  debate  was  closed  with  a  resolution, 
by  which  the  iëromnemons  were  directed  to  repair  to  Ther¬ 
mopylae,  at  a  time  appointed  previously  to  the  next  ordinary 
assembly,  with  a  decree  prepared  for  inflicting  the  due  pun¬ 
ishment  on  the  Amphissæans,  for  their  sacrilegious  offenses 
against  the  god  and  the  consecrated  land,  and  for  their  out¬ 
rage  on  the  Amphictyons.  To  prove  the  truth  of  this,  I 
produce  the  resolution  itself.” 

Athens  was  disposed  to  associate  herself  with  the 
pious  reparation  voted  by  the  Amphictyonie  diet.  De¬ 
mosthenes,  faithful  to  his  bargain  with  the  Amphis¬ 
sæans,  opposed  it.  u  This  vras  commanding  you  to  for¬ 
get  the  oaths  which  your  ancestors  swore,  to  forget  the 
anathema  and  the  divine  oracle.”  All  other  cities  send 
delegates  to  Thermopylae,  u  except  one  single  city, 
whose  name  I  will  pass  over  in  silence  (Thebes,  re¬ 
cently  destroyed  by  Alexander),  and  may  its  disaster 
never  be  renewed  among  any  people  of  Greece  !  ” 
Hostilities  were  opened  against  the  Amphissæans. 
Athens  remained  a  stranger  to  them,  while  the  gods 
offered  to  her  in  this  sacred  expedition  a  leader¬ 
ship  which  Demosthenes  had  sold.  The  orator  here 
with  majestic  eloquence  unrolls  the  picture  of  the 
strange  catastrophes  which  were  the  consequence  of 
the  sacrilege  committed  by  Demosthenes,  in  spite  of 
the  advice  of  the  gods. 

“And  did  not  the  gods  warn  us  of  our  danger?  Did  they 
not  urge  the  necessity  of  vigilance,  in  a  language  scarcely 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


439 


less  explicit  than  that  of  man?  Surely  never  was  a  state 
more  evidently  protected  by  the  gods,  and  more  notoriously 
ruined  b}r  its  popular  leaders.  Were  we  not  sufficiently 
alarmed  by  that  portentous  incident  in  the  mysteries,  the 
sudden  death  of  the  initiated?  Did  not  Amyniades  still 
further  warn  us  of  our  danger,  and  urge  us  to  send  deputies 
to  Delphi  to  consult  the  god?  And  did  not  Demosthenes 
oppose  this  design?  Did  he  not  say  the  Pythian  priestess 
was  inspired*  by  Philip,  rude  and  brutal  as  he  is,  insolently 
presuming  on  that  full  power  to  which  your  favor  raised 
him?  And  did  he  not  at  last,  without  one  propitious  sacrifice, 
one  favorable  omen  to  assure  us  of  success,  send  out  our 
armies  to  manifest  and  inevitable  danger?  Yet,  he  lately 
presumed  to  say  that  Philip  did  not  venture  to  march  into 
our  territories  for  this  very  reason,  because  his  sacrifices  had 
not  been  very  propitious.  What  punishment,  therefore,  is 
due  to  thy  offenses,  thou  pest  of  Greece?  If  the  conqueror 
was  prevented  from  invading  the  territories  of  the  van¬ 
quished  by  unpropitious  sacrifices,  shouldst  thou,  who,  with¬ 
out  the  least  attention  to  futurity,  without  one  favorable 
omen,  hast  sent  our  armies  to  the  field,  shouldst  thou  be 
honored  with  a  crown  for  those  calamities,  in  which  thou 
hast  involved  the  state,  or  driven  from  our  borders  with 
ignominy? 

“  And  what  can  be  conceived,  surprising  or  extraordinary, 
that  we  have  not  experienced?  Our  lives  have  not  passed  in 
the  usual  and  natural  course  of  human  affairs;  no,  we  were 
born  to  be  an  object  of  astonishment  to  posterity.  Do  we 
not  see  the  king  of  Persia,  he  who  opened  a  passage  for  his 
navy  through  mount  Athos,  who  stretched  his  bridge  across 
the  Hellespont,  who  demanded  earth  and  water  from  the 
Greeks;  he  who,  in  his  letters,  presumed  to  style  himself 
sovereign  of  mankind,  from  the  rising  to  the  setting  sun; 

*  Demosthenes  expressed  this  by  an  artificial  phrase  (the  priestess 
Pliilippized),  on  which  the  adversary  founds  liis  charge  of  rudeness 
and  brutality. 


440 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


now  no  longer  contending  to  be  lord  over  others,  but  to 
secure  his  personal  safety?  Do  not  we  see  those  crowned 
with  honor  and  ennobled  with  the  command  of  the  war 
against  Persia,  who  rescued  the  Delphian  temple  from  sacri¬ 
legious  hands?  Hath  not  Thebes,  our  neighboring  state, 
been  in  one  day  torn  from  the  midst  of  Greece?  And, 
although  this  calamity  may  justly  be  imputed  to  her  own 
pernicious  counsels,  yet  we  are  not  to  ascribe  such  infatua¬ 
tion  to  any  natural  causes,  but  to  the  fatal  influence  of  some 
evil  genius.*  Are  not  the  Lacedaemonians,  those  wretched 
men,  who  had  but  once  slightly  interfered  in  the  sacrilegious 
outrage  on  the  temple;  who,  in  their  day  of  power,  aspired  to 
the  sovereignty  of  Greece;  now  reduced  to  display  their 
wretchedness  to  the  world  by  sending  hostages  to  Alexander, 
ready  to  submit  to  that  fate  which  he  shall  pronounce  upon 
themselves  and  on  their  country;  to  those  terms  which  a 
conqueror,  and  an  incensed  conqueror,  shall  vouchsafe  to 
grant?  And,  is  not  this  our  state,  the  common  refuge  of  the 
Greeks,  once  the  great  resort  of  all  the  ambassadors  from  the 
several  cities,  sent  to  implore  our  protection  as  their  sure 
resource;  now  obliged  to  contend,  not  for  sovereign  author¬ 
ity,  but  for  our  native  land?  And,  to  these  circumstances 
have  we  been  gradually  reduced  from  that  time  when  De¬ 
mosthenes  first  assumed  the  administration.  Well  doth  the 
poet  Hesiod  pronounce  on  such  men,  in  one  part  of  his 
works,  where  he  points  out  the  duty  of  citizens,  and  warns 
all  societies  to  guard  effectually  against  evil  ministers.  I 
shall  repeat  his  words;  for  I  presume  we  treasured  up  the 
sayings  of  poets  in  our  memory  when  young,  that  in  our 
riper  years  we  might  apply  them  to  advantage. 

*  OsoftXdftziav  *  *  *  d<ppo(TL)v7]v,  madness  attributed  to  divine 
wrath:  Quos  jperderc  vult  Jupiter  demented. 

Daigne,  daigne,  mon  Dieu,  sur  Mathan  et  sur  elle 

Répandre  cet  esprit  d’imprudence  et  d’erreur 

De  la  chute  des  rois  funeste  avant-coureur!  ( Athalie ,  i,  2  ) 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


441 


When  one  man’s  crimes  the  wrath  of  Ileav’n  provoke, 

Oft  hath  a  nation  felt  the  fatal  stroke. 

Contagion’s  blast  destroys,  at  Jove’s  command, 

And  wasteful  famine  desolates  the  land. 

Or,  in  the  field  of  war,  her  boasted  pow’rs 
Are  lost  ;  and  earth  receives  her  prostrate  tow’rs, 

In  vain  in  gorgeous  state  her  navies  ride; 

Dash’d,  wreck’d,  and  buried  in  the  boist’rous  tide. 

Take  away  the  measure  of  these  verses,  consider  only  the 
sentiment,  and  you  will  fancy  that  you  hear,  not  some  part 
of  Hesiod,  but  a  prophecy  of  the  administration  of  Demosthe¬ 
nes;  for  true  it  is,  that  both  fleets  and  armies,  and  whole 
cities,  have  been  completely  destroyed  by  his  administration. 
(Leland.) 

In  all  this  quotation  from  Æscliines’  oration,  the 
tone  is  elevated  and  the  thoughts  are  as  grand  as 
the  images,  but  in  the  midst  of  his  solemn  appeals 
ostentation  is  more  apparent  than  true  emotion.  In 
vain  he  exhausts  all  the  resources  of  his  art;  his  ora¬ 
tion  always  exhibits  the  baseness  of  his  heart.  Now 
this  baseness  stamps  upon  the  eloquence  of  Æscliines 
a  stain  which  his  sentimental  and  religious  disguises 
are  unable  to  dissimulate.  The  mask  is  well  adjusted, 
painted  with  appropriate  colors,  and  yet  through  this 
mask  the  hypocrite  is  clearly  discovered.  Was  it 
not  sufficient  for  Æschines  to  have  beeç  the  auxil¬ 
iary  of  Philip,  and  was  it  necessary  that  he  should 
complete  his  impersonation  in  all  points  by  becoming 
the  auxiliary  of  Divinity  ? 

The  gods  are  useful  allies,  and  their  intervention 
is  always  advantageous.  Demosthenes  knew  how  to 
consider  their  auguries;  he  sought  his  allies  else¬ 
where, —  in  his  conscience  as  a  good  citizen,  in  his 
hatred  toward  the  invader  and  toward  his  accomplices. 
This  answer  of  Pytliia  was  delivered  to  the  assembled 


442 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE, 


people:  “All  tlie  Athenians,  except  one,  advise  the 
same.”  Philip’s  partisans  had  dictated  this  answer 
to  Pytliia  in  order  to  render  Demosthenes  odious. 
Æscliines  rendered  himself  odious  by  making  himself 
the  interpreter  of  sacred  impostures.  Philocrates  com¬ 
pares  him  to  a  prophet  delivering  oracles.  The  oracle 
and  the  orator  seem  to  us  to  offer  another  analogy 
besides  that  of  diction.  Pythia  often  obeyed  other 
inspirations  than  those  of  heaven,  and  did  not  yield 
less  to  Pluto  than  to  Apollo. 

Before  the  destruction  of  Phocis,  Æscliines  feigned 
sickness  (sickness  has  at  all  times  been  a  diplomatic 
instrument),  that  he  might  not  go  on  an  embassy  to 
Macedonia.  Wlren  the  extermination  was  consum¬ 
mated,  Æscliines  recovered  and  flew  to  the  king. 
Philip  celebrated  the  ruin  of  Phocis  with  rejoicings: 
Æscliines  assisted  at  the  festive  banquet  of  the  in¬ 
vader,  an  indecency  which  he  was  destined  to  again 

renew  after  Chæronea. 

•* 

“  What  lie  did  after  he  had  reached  the  king  is  far  more 
shocking.  For  when  all  of  you  here,  and  the  Athenians  in 
general,  considered  the  poor  Phocians  so  shamefully  and 
cruelly  treated,  that  you  would  not  send  either  members  of 
the  council  or  the  judges  to  represent  you  at  the  Pjdhian 
games,  but  abstained  from  your  customary  deputation  to  the 
festival,  Æscliines  went  to  the  sacrifice  which  Philip  and 
the  Thebans  offered  in  honor  of  their  success  and  conquest; 
and  was  feasted,  and  joined  in  the  libations  and  prayers 
which  Philip  offered  up  in  thanksgiving  for  the  lost 
fortresses,  and  territory  and  troops  of  your  allies,  and 
donned  the  garland  and  sang  the  pæan  in  company  with 
Philip,  and  pledged  to  him  the  cup  of  friendship.  Nor  is 
it  possible  that  I  should  state  the  matter  thus,  and  the  de¬ 
fendant  otherwise.  *  *  *  With  respect  to  his  doings  yonder, 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


443 


there  will  be  evidence  against  him  by  his  colleagues  and 
persons  present,  who  told  the  particulars  to  me;  for  I  did 
not  go  with  them  on  the  embassy,  but  excused  myself.  *  *  * 
What  prayer  do  you  suppose  Philip  offered  to  the  gods  when 
he  poured  his  libation?  What  do  you  suppose  the  Thebans? 
Did  they  not  pray  for  might  and  victory  in  battle  for  them 
and  their  allies;  the  contrary  for  the  allies  of  the  Phocians? 
Well,  then;  Æschines  joined  in  that  prayer,  and  invoked  a 
curse  upon  his  country,  which  you  ought  now  to  make  recoil 
upon  himself.”  * 

Let  us  see  how  Æschines  tries  to  justify  himself. 

“  The  accuser  says,  I  sung  the  pæan  with  Philip,  after 
the  destruction  of  the  cities  of  Phocis.  What  proof  could 
manifestly  establish  it?  Like  my  colleagues  I  have  been 
invited  to  a  customary  banquet  which,  with  the  deputies  of 
Greece,  guests  like  us,  counted  not  less  than  two  hundred 
table  companions.  In  this  crowd,  no  doubt,  I  have  been  clearly 
remarked;  I  did  not  keep  silent;  I  sung,  if  we  shall  believe  De¬ 
mosthenes,  who  was  not  there,  and  did  not  produce  any  testi¬ 
mony  of  any  present  person.  And  how  had  my  voice  been  dis¬ 
tinguished  unless  I  intoned  first,  as  in  the  chorus?  If  then 
I  was  silent,  Demosthenes,  your  accusation  is  lying.  But  if, 
when,  my  fatherland  was  flourishing  and  my  fellow-citizens 
were  not  afflicted  by  any  disgrace,  I  sung  with  my  colleagues 
a  hymn  by  which  the  Divinity  was  honored  without  out¬ 
raging  Athens  in  anything,  I  did  a  pious,  innocent  action, 
and  I  deserve  to  be  absolved.  But  no,  I  am  not  therefore 
worthy  of  any  pity;  it  is  you  who  are  a  pious  man, —  you,  the 
accuser  of  them  whose  libations  you  have  been  a  partaker  of.”  t 

Æscliines  is  logical.  He  declares  Philip’s  expedi¬ 
tion  against  Phocis  pious;  there  can  be  no  impiety 
in  celebrating  its  success.:}:  Either  Æschines  is  sincere 

*  On  the  Embassy,  §  128.  f  On  the  Embassy ,  §  1G2. 

f  According  to  Demosthenes,  Æschines’  intrigues  resulted  in 
excluding  Phocis  from  the  treaty  which  Philip  consented  to.  Æs- 


444 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


in  the  expression  of  his  religious  belief,  and  then,  it 
must  be  confessed,  his  piety  chokes  his  patriotic  feeling 
and  his  moral  sense;  or  lie  affects  sentiments  which 
lie  lias  not.  In  both  cases  he  is  to  be  pitied;  for  his 
deceitful  devotion  is  insulting  to  the  Divinity,  or  his 
piety  is  very  similar  to  that  of  a  Frenchman  whom 
conscientious  scruples  would  have  induced  in  1859 
to  desire  the  ruin  of  the  F rencli  army  in  Italy. 

Demosthenes  formally  accuses  Æschines  of  having 
deliberately  served  Philip’s  designs  in  provoking  the 
sacred  war  against  the  Ampliissæans: 

“  When  clothed  with  the  dignity  of  the  state  he  arrived 
among  the  Amphictyons,  dismissing  and  disregarding  all 
besides,  he  hastened  to  execute  what  he  was  hired  for.  He 
makes  up  a  pretty  speech  and  strong,  showing  how  the  Cyr- 
rhæan  plain  came  to  be  consecrated.  Reciting  this  to  the 
presbyters,  men  unused  to  speeches  and  unsuspicious  of  any 
consecpiences,  he  procures  a  vote  from  them  to  walk  around 
the  district,  which  the  Ampliissæans  maintained  they  had  a 
right  to  cultivate,  but  which  he  charged  to  be  parcel  of  the 
sacred  plain.  *  *  *  When  the  Amphictyons,  at  the  instance 
of  this  man,  walked  over  the  plain,  the  Locrians  fell  upon 
them  and  well-nigh  speared  them  all  ;  some  of  the  presbyters 
they  carried  off  captive.  Complaints  having  followed,  and 
war  being  stirred  up  against  the  Ampliissæans,  at  first  Cotty- 
plius  led  an  army  composed  entirely  of  Amphictyons;  but  as 
some  never  came,  and  those  that  came  did  nothing,  measures 
were  taken  against  the  ensuing  congress  b}7-  an  instructed 
gang,  the  old  traitors  of  Thessaly  and  other  states,  to  get  the 
command  for  Philip.  And  they  have  found  a  fair  pretext: 
for  it  was  necessary,  they  said,  either  to  subsidize  themselves 

chines  then  labored  to  deliver  Phocis  to  the  prince,  “  bound  hand  and 
foot  Qwuov  où/.  6 7T ifi oj  rw  /sips  (l^Vavrîç).”  (On  tlce  Embassy.)  This 
accusation  is  not  surprising  when  we  see  Æschines  on  many  an 
occasion  detesting  the  “  impious  ”  Phocians. 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


445 


and  maintain  a  mercenary  force  and  fine  all  recusants,  or  to 
elect  him.  What  need  of  many  words?  He  was  thereupon 
chosen  general;  and  immediately  afterward  collecting  an 
army,  and  marching  professedly  against  Cyrrha,  he  bids  a 
long  farewell  to  the  Cyrrhæans  and  Locrians,  and  seizes  Ela- 
tea.  Had  not  the  Thebans,  upon  seeing  this,  immediately 
changed  their  minds  and  sided  with  us,  the  whole  thing  would 
have  fallen  like  a  torrent  upon  our  country.  As  it  was,  they 
for  the  instant  stopped  him;  chiefly,  0  Athenians,  by  the 
kindness  of  some  divinity  to  Athens,  but  secondly,  as  far  as 
it  could  depend  on  a  single  man,  through  me.”* 

The  recital  which  Æschines  himself  has  given  of  the 
memorable  sitting  of  the  council  in  which  he  was  the 
hero,  if  closely  examined,  confirms  the  probability  of 
Demosthenes’  imputations.  Many  of  the  traits  arouse 
suspicions.  Scarcely  had  they  arrived  at  Delphi,  when 
the  liieromnemon  and  one  of  the  pylagoræ  were  taken 
with  a  fever.  Was  this  an  unfortunate  accident  or  a 
premeditated  evasion  ?  Did  they  wish  by  absenting 
themselves  to  give  room  to  Æschines,  who  had  his  own 
plan,  and  to  avoid  associating  themselves  with  a  dan¬ 
gerous  responsibility  ?  Amphictyons,  who  are  friends 
of  Athens,  inform  Æschines  that  the  Amphissæans, 
through  complaisance  for  the  Thebans,  who  were  hos¬ 
tile  to  Athens,  are  about  to  decree  a  fine  of  fifty  talents 
against  the  republic,  because  of  a  consecration  injuri¬ 
ous  to  Thebes.  Æschines  runs  to  the  assembly  to  de¬ 
fend  his  country.  Now,  according  to  Demosthenes, 
Ainphissa  never  thought  of  raising  any  complaint  of 
this  nature  against  Athens.  It  is  a  “false  pretext” 
which  the  knave  alleges  to  justify  his  tirade  against 
the  Locrians,  whose  ruin  he  plotted.  Whilst  Æschines 
justifies  Athens,  an  Ampliissæan,  “perhaps  urged  to 


*  Pro  Corona ,  §  149." 


446  POLITICxVL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

tliis  error  by  a  god,”  insults  the  Athenians  and  demands 
that  they  be  driven  from  the  temple  as  accomplices  of 
the  sacrilegious  Phocians.  Is  this  fact  probable  ?  Did 
not  the  Ampliissæans,  according  to  yEscliines’  confes¬ 
sion,  take  part  against  the  Amphictyonie  troops,  in 
favor  of  the  inhabitants  of  Cyrrha,  a  people  of  Phocis  ? 
The  outrages  of  this  person  kindled  the  wrath  of  Æs- 
chines.  He  replies  by  giving  a  pathetic  picture  of  the 
sacrilege  of  Amphissa.  It  is  no  longer  a  question  of 
votive  shields,  but  of  the  chastisement  which  must  be 
inflicted  upon  the  Locrians.  Thus  the  eloquent  apos¬ 
trophe  which  was  called  forth  by  the  insults  of  the 
Amphissæan,  was  an  unpremeditated  diversion,  in¬ 
stantaneously  inspired  in  the  Athenian  pylagoræ  by  a 
patriotic  indignation,  a  digression  profitable  to  Athens 
and  for  which  the  republic  ought  to  feel  thankful  to 
him.  yEs chines,  on  hearing  the  city  thus  stigmatized, 
could  not  control  himself;  never,  in  his  whole  life,  had 
he  experienced  such  anger.  A  skillful  orator  exagger¬ 
ated  his  wrath  in  order  to  explain  an  untimely  explosion 
of  religious  zeal,  whose  consequences  were  disastrous 
to  Athens.  Later,  yEscliines,  as  if  under  the  impres¬ 
sion  of  the  divine  maledictions  which  he  has  described, 
personally  made  his  peace  with  the  gods.  He  advised 
the  Ampliictyons  to  follow  this  prudent  example,  and 
to  swear  a  war  of  extermination  against  the  impious, 
lie  aroused  their  fanaticism;  he  placed  the  sacred  sword 
in  their  hands.  This  was  a  consecration  of  slaughter. 

In  these  conjunctures  the  religious  zeal  of  yEscliines 
is  equivalent  to  a  crime  of  high  treason.  For  the  Athe¬ 
nians  had  not  authorized  their  pylagora  to  arouse  the 
Amphictyonie  council  against  Amphissa,  and  to  incite 
a  sacred  war  which  was  eagerly  desired  by  their  enemy. 
yEscliines,  the  deputy  of  Athens  at  Delphi,  did  not 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


447 


look  to  tlie  affairs  of  Athens  but  to  those  of  Philip. 
His  piety,  even  if  sincere,  could  not  therefore  exculpate 
him  from  a  public  crime,  the  origin  of  the  capture  of 
Elatea  and  the  ruin  of  his  country.  It  would  be  use¬ 
less  to  “torture”  the  truth;  he  could  never  free  him¬ 
self  from  a  treason  which  crowned  his  iniquities.  Thus 
spoke  Demosthenes,  and  at  the  same  time  cursed  his 
“  impure  head.”  In  the  oration  On  the  Embassy  Æs- 
cliines  is  indignant  at  the  thought  that  the  Athenians 
should  have  left  Demosthenes  unpunished,  when  they 
had  “executed  Socrates  the  sophist.”  This  badly- 
drawn  comparison  is  expressive.  Æschines’  hatred  of 
Demosthenes  is  veiled,  like  that  of  Meletus  and  of 
Anytus,  under  religious  pretext.  Personal  resentments 
are  the  secret  of  his  piety  and  the  stimulus  of  the  fanati¬ 
cism  which  he  inspires  in  the  Athenian  people  without 
even  having  the  sad  excuse  of  sharing  it. 

Æschines  has  sown  with  dangers  the  path  on  which 
Demosthenes  had  to  j>ass  in  order  to  defend  himself. 
He  hoped  to  see  him  strike  against  engines  of  war,  the 
indiscreet  touch  of  which  provoked  mortal  explosions. 
Such  was  Demosthenes’  necessity  to  justify  Cliæronea 
and  to  speak  freely  of  the  all-powerful  Alexander.  The 
orator  set  this  difficulty  at  naught;  he  dared  to  main¬ 
tain  that  the  defeat,  even  though  foreseen,  had  to  be 
met  in  the  name  of  duty;  he  was  not  afraid  to  conclude 
an  oration  which  teemed  with  regrets  at  the  downfall 
of  Athens,  with  execrations  against  its  conquerors. 
Æschines  had  laid  another  snare  for  him,  which  was 
even  more  perfidious.  This  Demosthenes  could  not 
brave. 

It  is  always  difficult  to  undertake  the  justification  of 
acts  or  of  words  declared  impious.  If  we  reply  that  the 
accuser  is  a  knave  who  lies  knowingly,  we  are  always 


448 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


apt  to  wound  the  feelings  of  the  people,  and  of  hearers 
who  are  perhaps  sincerely  imbued  with  opinions  af¬ 
fected  by  the  informer.  If  we  allege  patriotic  probity 
and  disinterested  devotion  to  the  state,  this  apology  is 
foreign  to  the  question  and  does  not  refute  the  accusa¬ 
tion  of  disrespect  toward  the  gods.  Ilow  are  we  to 
prove,  in  the  present  cause,  that  political  passions  and 
human  covetousness  mingled  with  the  anathema  against 
the  Phocians,  the  plunderers  of  Delphi,  or  against  the 
Ampliissqeans,  the  desecrators  of  the  sacred  field  ? 
Here  Demosthenes  cannot  meet  TEscliines  with  equal 
arms.  The  lieutenants  of  the  Phocian  Plialæcos  com¬ 
menced  digging  around  the  hearth  and  tripod  of  Delphi 
on  the  belief  in  a  Homeric  verse,  which  mentions  4  ‘  the 
treasures  concealed  in  the  stony  soil  of  Phoebus’  tem¬ 
ple  in  rocky  Pytlio.”*  Violent  earthquakes,  manifest 
signs  of  divine  wrath,  checked  the  desecrators.  De¬ 
mosthenes  himself  had  to  fear  the  commotions  of  the 
sacred  ground  on  which  his  enemy  forced  him  to  defend 
himself;  at  every  imprudent  word  he  was  threatened 
with  the  fire  of  heaven.  Hence  his  reticence  and  his 
shifts, — he  walked  upon  burning  coals. 

If  the  question  turns  upon  the  first  sacred  war  of 
Phocis  (355),  he  denies  that  he  was  implicated  in  it  as 
a  responsible  counsellor.  He  was  not  then  connected 
with  public  affairs.  Besides,  even  if  he  had  been  ani¬ 
mated  with  an  indulgence  toward  the  Phocians,  these 
feelings  could  have  found  their  excuse  in  the  feelings 
of  the  Athenians.  Athens  indeed  recognized  “their 
wwongs,”  but  she  hated  their  enemies,  the  Thebans, 
even  more  than  she  reproved  a  sacrilege  to  which  de¬ 
spair  had  driven  a  ruined  people, —  a  people  despoiled 
of  all,  of  their  land,  their  wives,  their  children.  Their 

*  Iliad ,  ix,  404. 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


449 


Apollo  seemed  powerless  to  protect  them.  They  de¬ 
manded  provisions  and  arms  of  his  treasure  of  Delphi. 
The  impiety  of  the  Phocians,  who  attacked  the  divinity 
itself  in  their  distress,  had,  according  to  Justin  (viii,  1), 
rendered  the  Thebans  even  more  odious  because  they 
reduced  them  to  this  extremity.  Sparta  sent  aid  to 
them;  Athens  accorded  her  alliance  to  them.  Demos¬ 
thenes  was  excusable  for  not  having  fought  those  im¬ 
pressions  in  the  hearts  of  his  fellow  citizens  which 
circumstances  rendered  legitimate. 

Æscliines  accuses  him  of  having  devoted  Athens 
to  the  wrath  of  the  gods,  by  dissuading  her  from 
joining  the  Amphictyonie  league.  To  this  charge 
the  orator  could  not  answer  without  the  evasion  that 
it  was  better  to  aid  his  country  than  the  gods.  A 
direct  justification  upon  the  basis  of  the  imputation 
being  forbidden  him,  he  used  palliatives  and  devious 
methods.  He  did  not  deny  the  impiety  of  the  dese- 
crators  of  a  consecrated  district;  he  raised  doubts  of 
the  consecration  itself.  For  want  of  a  forcible  apology, 
he  proved  that  the  adversary  could  not  present  his 
own.  The  accused  became  the  accuser;  he  called  on 
the  gods  to  witness  the  justness  of  his  intentions 
and  the  purity  of  his  acts.  Tie  invoked  Pythian 
Apollo  in  particular,  whom  Æscliines  especially 
wished  to  arouse  against  him;  he  called  him  to  wit¬ 
ness  the  truth  of  his  words  when  he  accused  Æs- 
chines  of  having  been  the  voluntary  auxiliary  of 
Philip,  under  pretext  of  defending  the  gods.  Even 
without  urging  the  sacred  war,  he  (Demosthenes)  was 
more  worthy  of  the  protection  of  the  Delphic  god  than 
the  religious  Æscliines:  such  was  the  impression 
which  Demosthenes  wished  to  leave  upon  his  hearers; 
and  to  this  effect  he  demonstrated  the  criminal  in- 
19* 


« 


450 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


telligence  between  Æschines  and  the  Macedonians, 
in  their  plot  against  Greece.  Demosthenes  deserted 
the  cause  of  the  gods!  Æschines  deserted  the  cause 
of  his  country!  Æschines  was  really  impious,  he  was 
the  scourge  of  all  the  Hellenes. 

III.  DEMOSTHENES  A  B A.D  COUNSELLOR. 


llTobç  TrpoLTTOvzaç  uxèp  ô/icôv  t:  TÏjç  aÔTod  rô/rjç  àviTrXrjffsv  *  *  * 
EbOuôiy.to  Arjp.O(r0é'yrjç  £<prj  <pikoq  elvac  ’  ovtoç  ùtzojàsto:  With  his 
ill  fortune  Demosthenes  has  ruined  those  who  labored  in  your  be¬ 
half.  *  *  *  He  says  that  he  was  the  friend  of  Eutliydicus;  Euthydi- 
cus  has  perished  ”  (Dinarchus). 

Æschines  did  not  dare  say  openly  to  the  Athenians: 
“You  have  failed  in  defending  your  liberty  against 
Philip.”  He  attributed  their  defeat  to  the  fatal  in¬ 
fluence  of  a  bad  counsellor.  From  the  dav  on  which 

«y 

Demosthenes  concluded  a  venal  compact  with  sacri¬ 
legious  Ampliissa,  all  who  approached  him  were 
plunged  more  than  ever  into  incurable  evils.  The 
malediction  connected  with  his  person  triumphed  over 
the  good  fortune  of  Athens.  Thebes,  Lacedæmon, 
the  Great  King,  all  the  enemies  of  Macedonia  have 
succumbed;  a  political  and  sacrilegious  orator  sympa¬ 
thized  with  them  in  tlieir  struggle  against  the  people 
who  avenged  the  Divinity.  Æschines  unscrupulously 
took  advantage  of  the  prejudice  which  had  made  an 
unlucky  man  of  Demosthenes.  Six  years  later,  Dinar¬ 
chus,  in  the  trial  of  Harpalus,  exposed  the  disastrous 
effects  of  this  fatal  politician. 

Belief  in  a  good  or  bad  destiny  was  a  conviction 
deeply  rooted  in  the  minds  of  the  Greeks.  Herodo¬ 
tus  is  thoroughly  imbued  with  it,  and  owes  to  it  one 
of  his  most  touching  recitals, —  that  of  Adrastus  the 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


451 


Accursed  (i,  34).  This  predestined  good  fortune  is 
considered  by  Aristotle  *  among  the  number  of  con¬ 
vincing  arguments  in  orations.  Æschines  insists  on 
it  the  more  voluntarily  because  he  knows  his  adver¬ 
sary  is  unable  to  refute  it  successfully.  What  could 
he  allege  to  prove  logically  that  he  was  not  infested 
with  a  fatal  ill-fortune  ?  Appearances  were  against 
him:  the  cities  which  he  had  joined  to  Athens  had 
all  fallen  like  herself;  the  Macedonians,  the  enemies 
of  his  whole  life,  were  everywhere  triumphant.  The 
desecrators,  aided  in  vain  by  his  political  manage- 

*  Rhetoric  i,  5.  The  fortunate  man  has  ugly  brothers,  and  he  alone 
is  handsome.  (Cf.  Eudemian  Ethics ,  vii,  14.)  “  It  cannot  be  denied 
that  there  are  classes  who  really  have  good  luck.  They  have  fine 
opportunities  to  act  foolishly,  everything  succeeds  for  them.  *  *  * 
Nature  establishes  between  men  from  the  moment  of  their  birth  pro¬ 
found  differences,  giving  to  some  blue  eyes ,  to  others  black  eyes.  *  *  * 
In  like  manner  Nature  makes  some  fortunate,  others  unfortu¬ 
nate:  *  *  *  In  navigation  it  is  not  the  most  skillful  who  are  fortunate; 
but  sometimes  it  is  as  a  game  of  dice,  in  which  one  draws  nothing, 
whilst  another  draws  a  number  that  proves  that  he  is  naturally 
fortunate,  or  that  he  is  loved  by  the  gods,  as  they  say.  *  *  *  If  this 
fool  succeeds,  it  is  because  destiny,  which  is  an  excellent  pilot ,  is  in  his 
favor.  I  confess  that  we  are  justly  astonished  ( aroizov )  that  God  or 
destiny  loves  a  man  of  this  kind,  rather  than  the  most  honest  or 
prudent  man.” 

The  partisans  of  Philip  purposely  exalted  his  good  fortune.  De¬ 
mosthenes  recognized  it,  with  a  feeling  of  bitter  irony,  in  a  particular 
passage:  “Numerous  are  the  motives,  Athenians,  for  congratulating 
Philip  on  his  good  luck;  but  he  can  be  especially  congratulated  on 
one  advantage  of  which  I  have  not  found  another  example  (I  call  the 
gods  to  witness)  among  the  great  fortunes  of  our  century.  To  have 
taken  great  cities,  to  have  joined  vast  countries  to  his  empire,  all 
successes  of  this  kind  are  brilliant  and  worthy  of  envy;  who  doubts 
it?  Nevertheless,  we  could  cite  many  others  who  have  enjoyed  them. 
But  good  luck  was  his;  he  shared  it  with  no  one.  What  is  it?  his 
policy  needed  perverse  men,  and  the  perversity  of  those  whom  he 
found,  surpassed  his  desires.”  (On  the  Embassy ,  §  67.) 


452 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


ment,  edified  the  world  by  the  exemplary  chastise¬ 
ments  which  they  suffered.  To  refute  such  over¬ 
whelming  testimony,  strengthened  by  the  superstitious 
feelings  of  a  people  who  were  astonished  at  the  sight 
of  revolutions  which  had  shaken  the  whole  world,  was 
indeed  a  heavy  task;  Demosthenes  sustained  its  weight 
as  well  as  he  could. 

“  From  many  things  one  may  see  his  unfeelingness  and 
malignity,  but  especially  from  his  discourse  about  fortune. 
For  my  part,  I  regard  any  one  who  reproaches  his  fellow-man 
with  fortune,  as  devoid  of  sense.  He  that  is  best  satisfied 
with  his  condition,  he  that  deems  his  fortune  excellent,  can 
not  be  sure  that  it  will  remain  so  until  the  evening.  How, 
then,  can  it  be  right  to  bring  it  forward,  or  upbraid  another 
man  with  it?  As  Æschines,  however,  has  on  this  subject  (be¬ 
sides  many  others)  expressed  himself  with  insolence,  look, 
men  of  Athens,  and  observe  how  much  more  truth  and  hu¬ 
manity  there  shall  be  in  my  discourse  upon  fortune  than  in 
his.  I  hold  the  fortune  of  our  commonwealth  to  be  good, 
and  so  I  find  the  oracles  of  Dodonæan  Jupiter  and  Pythian 
Apollo  declaring  to  us.  The  fortune  of  all  mankind  which 
now  prevails,  I  consider  cruel  and  dreadful. 

“  For  what  Greek,  what  barbarian,  has  not  in  these  times 
experienced  a  multitude  of  evils?  That  Athens  chose  the 
noblest  policy;  that  she  fares  better  than  those  very  Greeks 
who  thought  if  they  abandoned  us  they  should  abide  in  pros¬ 
perity,  I  reckon  as  part  of  her  good  fortune.  *  *  *  If  you 
can  mention,  Æschines,  a  single  man  under  the  sun,  whether 
Greek  or  barbarian,  who  has  not  suffered  by  Philip’s  power 
formerly,  and  Alexander’s  now,  well  and  good;  I  concede  to 
you  that  my  fortune,  or  misfortune  (if  you  please),  has  been 
the  cause  of  everything.  But  if  many  that  never  saw  me  or 
heard  my  voice  have  been  grievously  afflicted, — not  individuals 
only,  but  whole  cities  and  nations, — how  much  juster  and 
fairer  is  it  to  consider  that  to  the  common  fortune  apparently 


THE  TRIAL  ON  TIIE  CROWN. 


453 


of  all  men,  to  a  tide  of  events  overwhelming  and  lamentable, 
these  disasters  are  to  be  attributed?  *  *  *  If  we  suffered 
reverses,  if  all  happened  not  to  us  as  we  desired,  I  conceive 
she  has  had  that  share  of  the  general  fortune  which  fell  to 
our  lot.  As  to  my  fortune  (personally  speaking),  or  that  of 
any  individual  among  us,  it  should,  as  I  conceive,  be  judged 
of  in  connection  with  personal  matters.  Such  is  my  opinion 
upon  the  subject  of  fortune, —  a  right  and  just  one,  as  it  ap¬ 
pears  to  me,  and  I  think  you  will  agree  with  it.  Æschines 
says  that  my  individual  fortune  is  paramount  to  that  of  the 
commonwealth,  the  small  and  mean  to  the  great  and  good. 
How  can  this  possibly  be?” 

Demosthenes  was  not  unfortunate,  because  he  was 
not  conquered:  “I  have  conquered  Philip,  because  his 
gold  has  not  been  able  to  corrupt  me.  *  *  *  I  never 
was  beaten  by  Philip  in  estimates  or  preparations;  far 
from  it;  but  the  generals  and  forces  of  the  allies  were 
overcome  by  his  fortune.”  Nobody  has  a  right  to 
charge  him  with  the  reverses  of  Athens;  he  neglected 
nothing  that  could  insure  success.  But  the  struggle 
was  too  unequal:  to  the  arms  of  the  Macedonians  he 
only  opposed  speeches,  and  the  traitors  paralyzed  all 
his  efforts.  Greece  has  suffered,  not  through  the  fault 
of  Demosthenes,  but  for  not  having  followed  his  advice. 
One  Demosthenes  in  every  city  would  have  been  enough 
for  the  common  salvation,  but  all  the  cities  were  full  of 
yEschineses.  “Then  go  not  about  saying,  O  Atheni¬ 
ans,  that  one  man  has  inflicted  these  calamities  on 
Greece.  Heaven  and  earth!  it  was  not  a  single  man, 
but  a  number  of  miscreants  in  every  state.”  Thu¬ 
cydides  (ii,  37)  praises  the  Athenians  for  respecting,  be¬ 
yond  all  the  others,  the  laws  protecting  the  sanction  of 
public  opinion.  In  Demosthenes’  eyes  one  of  them  is 
not  to  reproach  an  unfortunate  man  for  misfortunes 


454 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GKEECE. 


which  he  cannot  prevent.  Æschines  makes  tlie  lost 
cause  a  weapon  against  his  enemy;  he  violates  that  law 
of  moral  delicacy  which  forbids  the  abuse  of  an  inno¬ 
cent  man  on  account  of  unfortunate  circumstances. 
Demosthenes  was  unfortunate  in  having  stranded;  he 
did  not  strand  because  he  was  unfortunate.  Instead 
of  exciting  public  hatred  against  him,  Æschines  ought 
to  have  respected  his  affliction,  and,  if  he  was  able,  to 
have  shared  it. 

Notwithstanding  the  force  of  his  reasoning  and  the 
eloquence  of  his  complaints,  Demosthenes  undoubtedly 
did  not  succeed  in  overcoming  the  prejudice  of  an  ill- 
luck  which  was  connected  witli  his  person.  After  Chæ- 
ronea,  the  Athenians  continued  to  be  inspired  by  his 
counsels.  Nevertheless,  out  of  deference  for  a  preju¬ 
dice  at  variance  with  the  bold  confidence  of  his  fellow- 
citizens,  the  orator  for  some  time  abstained  from  sign¬ 
ing  his  own  name  to  decrees  which  he  had  adopted. 
He  subscribed  the  name  of  a  friend,  Nausicles.  He 
wished  to  remove  every  pretext  for  a  distrust  in  the 
future,  and  to  preserve  the  city  from  even  the  appear¬ 
ance  of  a  fatal  influence,  a  touching  proof  of  his  piety 
toward  his  country. 

AVithout  accepting  the  prejudice  of  the  Athenians  on 
the  fatality  attached  to  Demosthenes,  even  we  are 
struck  by  the  character  of  a  life  which  an  evil  destiny 
seems  to  have  constantly  pursued.  This  tragic  color 
appears  manifest  to  whosoever  considers  the  rough 
career  which  the  orator  experienced;  and,  at  first,  what 
a  contrast  his  career  forms  with  that  of  Æschines!  The 
friend  of  the  Macedonians  sung  the  pæan  at  Philip’s 
table  after  the  ruin  of  Phocis;  he  celebrated  Chæronea 
with  the  conqueror;  and  his  life  passed  calmly  and 
pleasantly  between  the  fruitful  sympathy  of  the  Mace- 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


455 


donians  and  tlie  artistic  admiration  or  moral  indiffer¬ 
ence  of  his  fellow-citizens.  He  lived  happily,  honored 
by  the  greatest  number.  One  disgrace  befell  him, — he 
provoked  Demosthenes  to  a  single  combat,  in  which  his 
hatred  was  baffled  and  his  vanity  humiliated.  He  re¬ 
solved  upon  voluntary  exile,  and  then  spent  his  leisure 
hours  between  the  culture  of  eloquence  and  friendly 
relations  with  Alexander,  until  he  died  peaceably  at 
Rhodes  or  Samos. 

With  this  picture  let  us  compare  that  of  Demosthenes’ 
life  and  death.  Early  deprived  of  his  paternal  inherit¬ 
ance,  Demosthenes,  at  the  age  of  twenty,  was  obliged  to 
contend  with  his  avaricious  guardians  for  his  property. 
His  persevering  efforts  deprived  them  of  a  small  share 
of  it.  After  a  laborious  youth,  obstinate  in  struggling 
against  natural  imperfections,  he  enters  the  tribune. 
He  is  there  mocked.  Far  from  losing  his  courage,  he 
redoubles  his  energy,  finally  triumphs  over  his  defects, 
and  carries  the  suffrages  of  the  Athenians.  What  fruit 
will  he  reap  from  it  ?  He  chooses  an  honorable  part, — 
the  defense  of  Hellenic  rights.  Philip’s  talents,  the 
vices  of  Athens,  the  weakness  of  all  Greece,  throw 
obstacles  in  his  way,  which,  though  constantly  sur¬ 
mounted,  constantly  rise  up  again  before  him.  Always 
in  the  breach,  he  struggles  alone  for  the  national 
honor.  He  is  always  right,  and  he  is  always  van¬ 
quished.  He  passed  his  life  rolling  the  rock  of  Sisy¬ 
phus.  After  Chæronea,  he  saw  liimself  dishonored 
as  a  public  scourge,  detested  as  sacrilegious,  and  ac¬ 
cursed. 

Is  not  he  who  sows  good  and  reaps  evil,  who  ap¬ 
proaches  without  ever  reaching  his  object,  indeed  con¬ 
demned  by  the  gods  ?  The  Theban  alliance  ‘  for  a 
moment  made  the  scales  balance  in  favor  of  Athens;  but 


456 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


the  superior  force  of  destiny  very  soon  disturbed  her 
equilibrium.  Fatality  seems  to  have  played  with  De¬ 
mosthenes.  At  the  death  of  Philip  (336)  and  of  Alex¬ 
ander  (323)  it  brightened  his  life  with  rays  of  hope, 
and  each  time  plunged  him  again  into  dark  uncer¬ 
tainty.  The  Athenians  restored  his  courage  by  ren¬ 
dering  due  homage  to  his  patriotic  policy  (330).  A 
few  years  afterward  (324)  the  Areopagus  condemned 
him  on  a  charge  of  corruption.  An  exile  awaited  him 
more  humiliating  than  that  of  FEschines,  if  he  was 
guilty;  much  more  grievous  if  he  was  innocent.  His 
return  was  a  triumph  (323)  which  recalls  that  of  Alci¬ 
biades.*  Scarcely  had  a  year  passed  when  the  defeat 
of  Cran  on  again  ruined  his  hopes.  He  was  incessantly 
baffled  by  deception  and  bitterness. 

Less  upright  than  Nicias,  but  more  illustrious  and 
more  useful  to  his  country  as  a  citizen,  he  was  the 
victim  of  a  longer  and  more  painful  misfortune.  Fond 
of  pleasures,  and  of  the  money  which  procured  them, 
very  sensitive  to  the  wounds  of  self-love,  given  to 
lamentable  tailings  through  timidity,  his  weaknesses 
subjected  him  to  the  slanders  and  calumnies  of  his 
enemies,  and  conspired  with  his  civic  virtues  to  make 
him  suffer.  Virtue  ought  to  be  always  gratuitous; 
why  is  it  not  always  unpunished  ?  Chæronea,  the 
grandest  political  title  of  Demosthenes  in  our  estima¬ 
tion,  won  for  him  the  reproachful  term,  parricide.  At 
the  time  of  his  greatest  credit  he  was  obliged  to  sup- 

*  A  galley  was  sent  to  bring  liim  from  Ægina;  and  when  lie  came 
up  from  tlie  Piraeus  to  Athens  the  whole  body  of  citizens  went  to  meet 
and  to  congratulate  him  on  his  return,  insomuch  that  there  was  neither 
a  magistrate  nor  a  priest  left  in  the  town.  The  people  made  him  a 
present  of  fifty  talents,  which  was  intended  to  compensate  the  fine 
that  was  imposed  upon  him  by  the  Areopagus.  (Plutarch,  Life  of 
Demosthenes,  27.) 


THE  TRIAL  O N  THE  CROWN. 


457 


port  the  overwhelming  weight  of  a  state  which  was 
rebellious  to  generous  counsels,  because  it  was  inac¬ 
tive.-5'*  Broken  by  a  final  disaster,  he  terminated  his 
days  as  a  fugitive,  surrounded  by  the  enemies  of  his 
country,  in  the  face  of  indifferent  or  impotent  gods. 
“The  life  of  the  statesman  is  as  ruffled  as  that  of  the 
warrior.  During  thirty  years  Demosthenes  main¬ 
tained  the  contest  against  Athens  and  against  Macedo¬ 
nia.  He  conquered  his  country,  but  the  victory  was 
too  late.  He  could  not  find  in  her  sufficient  support 
to  accomplish  his  work  by  rejecting  the  Macedonian 
yoke.  This  unfortunate  destiny,  and  the  firmness  of  a 
mind  unswayed  by  misfortune,  give  a  tragic  expression 
to  Demosthenes’  figure.  It  is  surprising  that  an  Alfi¬ 
eri,  for  example,  has  not  profited  by  such  a  drama. 
The  inflexible  obstinacy  of  Demosthenes  recalls  Prome¬ 
theus,^:  Pliiloctetes  and  Electra.  He  hated  the  invader 
as  the  son  of  Pæan  hated  the  Atrides.  Like  him,  he 
preferred  pain  to  the  shame  of  a  compromise.  He  did 
not  recognize  the  right  of  pardoning.  Clytemnestra 
killed  her  husband.  “  Strike  again!  ”  cried  Electra  to 
Orestes.  The  Macedonians  killed  Hellenic  liberty. 
To  his  last  breath  Demosthenes  cried,  “Revolt  and 
take  vengeance  on  the  murderers  !  ” 

Pain  is  a  blessing,  said  Antisthanes.  “True  hap¬ 
piness  is  obedience  to  the  voice  of  duty”  (Hyperides). 

*  Demetrius  reports  this  saying  of  Demades:  “Athens  is  no  longer 
the  warrior  city  of  our  ancestors.  She  is  an  old  woman  who  drags 
her  sandals,  and  lives  on  tisane.” 

\  Aristotle,  Nicomachean  Ethics ,  x,  7. 

X  Æschylus,  Prometheus  :  “  I  have  foreseen  all.  I  have  wished,  yes, 
I  have  wished,  to  act  thus.  I  will  not  deny  it,  in  order  to  aid  mortals 
I  have  incurred  sufferings  ”  (v,  270).  “  For  thy  servility,  know  you 

well  I  would  not  exchange  my  misery”  (v,  95G).  Demosthenes  used 
the  same  language  to  Æscliines. 

20 


458 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


In  this  respect  only  was  Demosthenes  happy  during 
his  whole  life.  Considering  things  with  the  elevated 
sentiments  of  which  he  himself  gave  a  striking  ex¬ 
ample,  he  was  also  happy  in  his  death.  He  deserved 
above  all  others  the  hatred  of  his  country’s  enemies. 
W as  not  this  a  more  enviable  death  than  that  of  Æs- 
chines,  who  died  faithful  to  the  Macedonians  and 
forgetful  of  Athens  ?  Or  of  Philip,  the  politician  of 
skillful  intrigues,  wdio  was  assassinated  in  a  court  in¬ 
trigue  ?  Or  of  Alexander,  the  young  Bacchus,  the 
conqueror  of  India,  who  was  carried  away  by  an 
orgy  ?  Or  of  Dinarchus,  who  was  paid  for  his  ser¬ 
vices  by  the  executioner  of  Polysperclion  ?  Or  of 
Demades,  expiating  his  duplicities  by  the  murder  of 
his  own  son,  whom  Cassander  killed  in  his  arms,  and 
then  killed  the  father  ?  The  great  soul  of  Demos¬ 
thenes  in  the  midst  of  trials  found  in  itself  the  con¬ 
solation  of  manly  courage:  the  consciousness  of  his 
fidelity  to  duty.  It  foresaw  another  consolation,  post¬ 
humous  but  sovereign:  the  certainty  of  an  honored 
immortality. 

The  testimonies  of  esteem  which  his  fellow-citizens 
conferred  upon  him  gave  him  a  presentiment  of  his 
future  renown.  In  the  trial  On  the  Crown ,  Athens, 
feeling  that  the  cause  of  Demosthenes  was  her  own, 
wished  to  sanction  the  glory  of  her  orator  by  sharing 
it.  The  Republic,  said  Æschines,  would  appear  such 
as  the  one  whom  she  would  crown.  Athens  pre¬ 
ferred  rather  to  resemble  Demosthenes  than  his  ac¬ 
cuser,  and  she  proudly  crowned  the  irreconcilable 
adversary  of  her  conquerors.  The  firmness  of  his 
attitude  after  Chæronea  was  a  plain  proof  of  his  de¬ 
termination.  The  constancy  of  Rome  after  Cannæ 
has  been  praised.  Frivolous  Athens  was  no  less 


» 


THE  TEIAL  OH  THE  CROWN. 


459 


vigorous,  although  in  a  situation  still  more  desperate. 
Owing  to  energetic  measures,  the  city  was  put  in  a 
state  of  defense;  the  slaves  enfranchised;  the  op¬ 
pressed  restored  to  their  rights.  The  sepulchres  fur¬ 
nished  stones  for  the  fortifications,  and  the  trophies 
of  the  temples  gave  up  their  arms.  Demosthenes 
was  the  soul  of  the  resistance;  he  went  to  arouse  the 
allied  cities,  whilst  the  people,  not  having  political 
rights  to  spare  their  Yarro,  punished  Ly sides  *  and 
inflicted  capital  punishment  on  the  emigrants.  Philip, 
in  the  face  of  this  unexpected  resolution,  used  gen¬ 
erosity  and  prudence,  f 


IV.  - GRECIAN  ELOQUENCE  EXTINGUISHED  WITH  DEMOS¬ 

THENES. 


"  Il p.i  au  yâp  To.pzT7tç  à-oaivurai  ebpooxa  Zsuç 
’AvépoÇj  ebrav  p.t v  y.o.za.  oobXtoy  rjp.ap  zÀrjGiv: 

“Jove  fix’d  it  certain,  that  whatever  day 
Makes  man  a  slave,  takes  half  his  worth  away.” 

After  peace  was  concluded  Athens,  notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  division  of  parties,  did  not  cease  to  contend 
secretly  in  proportion  to  her  resources.  Her  courage 
did  not  fail  her.  She  was  subjugated  by  force.  At 
every  propitious  opportunity  she  attempted  to  raise 

*  Attic  Orators  :  “You  commanded  the  army,  Ly  sides;  a  thousand 
citizens  have  perished  and  two  thousand  have  been  made  prisoners, 
and  a  trophy  has  been  raised  against  the  republic,  and  all  Greece 
is  enslaved!  All  these  misfortunes  have  befallen  us  while  you  were 
guiding  and  commanding  our  soldiers;  and  you  dare  to  live  and  to 
enjoy  the  light  of  the  sun,  and  to  present  yourself  on  the  public 
square;  you,  a  monument  of  shame  and  opprobrium  to  your 
country!”  ( Lycurgus .) 

t  Of.  The  Funeral  Oration  attributed  to  Demosthenes. 


460 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


her  head.  She  pursued  the  agents  of  Olympius;  she 
gave  all  liberty  to  orators  who  were  hostile  to  her 
conquerors.  “Before  the  smoking  ruins  of  Thebes” 
she  dared  (a  firmness  admired  by  Livy,  ix,  18)  pro¬ 
test  against  her  masters  and  even  ridicule  them.  Alex¬ 
ander  wished  to  be  a  god  and  the  recognized  god  of 
the  Athenians.  People  ought  to  deliberate  upon  the 
demanded  apotheosis:  “What  kind,”  said  Lycurgus, 
“will  that  god  be  whom  we  cannot  worship  except 
on  condition  that  we  purify  ourselves  when  leaving 
him  ?  ”  On  the  proposition  of  Demosthenes,  the  city 
declared  that  it  would  confine  itself  to  the  gods  which 
its  ancestors  worshiped.  This  proud  liberty  won  the 
esteem  of  Alexander.  He  expressed  the  desire  that 
at  his  death  command  in  Greece  should  be  reserved 
to  the  Athenians.  Their  eulogies,  he  declared,  were 
the  recompense  whose  hope  stimulated  his  exploits. 

Forty-two  years  after  Demosthenes’  death  (280), 
Athens  wished  to  consecrate  the  respect  due  to  his 
memory  by  a  public  act.  Demochares,  a  nephew  of 
the  orator,  proposed  and  carried  a  decree  in  which 
we  read  these  words: 

“  Demosthenes  served  the  Athenian  people  by  his  benefits 
and  his  counsels.  *  *  *  He  gave  to  the  state  three  triremes 
and  thirteen  talents.  *  *  *  He  contributed  his  own  property 
in  order  to  provide  arms  for  poor  citizens  and  to  purchase 
grain  during  the  famine.  *  *  *  He  ransomed  several  citi¬ 
zens  who  had  been  made  prisoners  by  Philip  at  Pydna,  at 
Methone,  and  at  Olynthus.  *  *  *  At  his  expense  he  repaired 
the  walls  of  the  Piraeus.  *  *  *  By  his  eloquence  and  devo¬ 
tion  he  brought  into  the  Athenian  alliance  the  Thebans, 
Euboea,  Corinth,  Megara,  Achaia,  Locris,  Byzantium,  and 
Messenia.  Sent  on  an  embassy  among  our  allies,  he  per¬ 
suaded  them  to  furnish  more  than  five  hundred  talents  for 


THE  TRIAL  GIST  THE  CROWN. 


461 


war  expenses.  A  deputy  to  the  people  of  the  Peloponnesus, 
he  distributed  money  among  them  in  order  to  prevent  them 
from  sending  reinforcements  to  Philip  against  Thebes.  To 
the  Athenians  he  gave  the  wisest  counsels,  and  supported  the 
national  independence  and  democracy  better  than  any  of  his 
contemporary  orators.  Banished  by  the  supporters  of  the 
oligarchy  when  the  people  had  lost  their  sovereignty,  he 
died  in  the  isle  of  Calauria,  a  victim  of  his  own  patriotism. 
*  *  *  Pursued  by  the  soldiers  of  Antipater,  he  remained  to 
the  last  faithful  to  the  democracy,  and  at  the  approach  of 
death  he  did  nothing  which  was  unworthy  of  Athens.  *  *  * 
The  oldest  of  his  family  will  hereafter  be  supported  at  the 
Prytaneum,  and  in  the  games  he  will  be  assigned  to  places 
of  honor.  A  bronze  statue  will  be  erected  on  the  public 
square  to  Demosthenes.” 

The  statue  received  this  inscription: 

“Divine  in  speech,  in  judgment  too  divine; 

Had  valor’s  wreath,  Demosthenes,  been  thine, 

Fair  Greece  had  still  her  freedom’s  ensign  borne, 

And  held  the  scourge  of  Macedon  in  scorn  !  ” 

Athens  owed  even  more  to  her  orator  than  she  ac¬ 
knowledged.  As  long  as  he  lived  he  supported  the 
soul  of  his  country.  The  proud  sentiments  which  he 
inspired  in  her  might  have  left  Athens  some  oblivion 
of  her  sad  condition.  When  Demosthenes  was  lost  to 
her,  not  having  in  herself  the  power  to  raise  her  head 
under  the  yoke,  she  bowed  humbly  and  submitted  en¬ 
tirely  to  the  degrading  influence  of  servitude.  From 
that  day  she  was  actually  enslaved,  and  her  feelings 
made  it  quite  evident. 

Seven  or  eight  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  decree 
in  honor  of  Demosthenes,  the  same  Athens  voted  a 
similar  decree  in  favor  of  his  nephew,  Demochares. 
This  person  received  the  same  homage  as  liis  uncle  for 
having  proved  his  devotion  to  the  public  welfare,  but 


462 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

tlie  conditions  and  circumstances  under  which  the  two 
men  labored  were  very  different.  In  the  number  of 
Demochares’  eminent  services  were  his  successful  em¬ 
bassies  to  kings;  he  obtained  money  from  Lysimachus, 
from  Ptolemæus  and  from  Antipater.  He  was  a  good 
administrator,  a  faithful  democrat  and  a  successful  beg¬ 
gar.  In  305,  Athens  had  reached  the  depth  of  her 
moral  degradation.  She  celebrated  the  entry  of  De¬ 
metrius  Poliorcetes  within  her  walls  with  this  sacred 
hymn: 

“Yes,  the  greatest  and  most  beloved  of  the  gods  are 
present  in  our  city.  See  how  the  propitious  occasion  intro¬ 
duces  Demeter  and  Demetrius  together.  She  comes  to  cele¬ 
brate  the  mysteries  of  her  daughter  (Proserpine);  he,  as 
joyful  as  becomes  a  god,  appears  handsome  and  smiling.  The 
majestic  spectacle  of  his  presence!  All  his  friends  in  a  circle 
around  him  like  the  stars;  he  in  the  midst  of  them  like  the 
sun.  0  thou  son  of  all-powerful  Neptune  and  of  Aphrodite, 
hail!  for  the  other  gods  are  either  too  far  away,  or  they  have 
no  ears,  or  they  do  not  exist,  or  they  have  no  care  for  us. 
But  thou,  we  behold  thee  present,  not  in  wood  or  in  stone, 
but  in  reality, —  to  thee  we  address  our  prayers,  *  *  *  etc.” 

“Such,”  adds  Athenæus,  u  was  tlie  song  which  the 
warriors  of  Marathon  sung,  not  only  in  public,  but 
even  around  their  firesides;  they  who  had  punished 
with  death  the  adorers  of  the  Persian  king,  and  who 
had  slain  myriads  of  barbarians.”  This  servile  cantata 
was  the  worthy  accompaniment  of  the  adulations  with 
which  Demetrius  was  overwhelmed  even  to  disgust. 
Athenæus  has  transmitted  to  us  the  proofs  of  all  this: 
altars  to  the  intimate  acquaintances  of  the  new  god, 
temples  to  his  two  mistresses.*  Thus  the  city  pros- 

*  One  of  them,  Lamia,  was  a  flute-player  at  Athens.  Plutarch 
{Life  of  Demetrius)  gives  curious  details  on  these  unheard  of  adula- 


THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 


463 


tituted  itself  to  a  foreign  master;  the  city  in  which  the 
popular  song  of  Harmodius  and  Aristogiton  had  been 
chanted  for  years;  the  city  which  had  been  formerly 
honored  with  the  meritorious  names  of  the  Prytaneum, 
of  the  hearth,  of  the  rampart  and  of  the  school  of 
Greece  A 

By  losing  his  liberty,  says  Homer,  man  loses  half  his 
virtue.  When  Greece  was  deprived  of  her  independ¬ 
ence,  she  was  at  the  same  blow  bereft  of  her  genius. 
Macedonian  rule  did  not  pacify  her  eloquence;  it  anni¬ 
hilated  it.  Demosthenes  had  no  heir  ;  he  did  not  even 
leave  a  legacy  to  any  one.  The  Hellenic  language,  so 
fertile  in  masterpieces  for  almost  two  centuries,  was 
suppressed  immediately  and  forever.  Only  rhetoric 
survived,  babbling  and  varnished,  in  its  schools;  bom¬ 
bastic  and  ingenious,  an  adulatress  to  the  powerful. 
But  one  name  rises  above  this  level  mediocrity,  that  of 
Demetrius  Phalereus.  Could  it  be  otherwise  ?  Ban¬ 
ished  from  the  political  domain,  where  it  once  enjoyed 
its  liberty,  eloquence  could  find  no  other  soil  to  culti¬ 
vate  than  the  petty  debates  of  civil  life  and  flattery. 
The  pride  of  the  city  became  the  humble  auxiliary  of 
the  domestic  hearth,  the  captive  servant  of  foreign 
masters.  Bobbed,  without  any  compensation,  of  her 
Attic  eloquence,  which  was  supplanted  by  Asiatic  lo¬ 
quacity,  Greece  deserved,  in  this  respect,  to  be  com- 

tions.  “  These  mockeries  completed  the  corruption  of  a  prince  whose 
mind  was  not  altogether  sane.”  One  of  the  most  grievous  fantasies 
of  the  new  god  to  the  Athenians  was  the  immediate  payment  of  the 
tribute  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  talents.  The  sum  was  sent  without 
delay  to  Demetrius,  who  delivered  it  to  his  courtesans  “  to  purchase 
toilet  powder.”  This  was  a  strange  way  to  recompense  the  Athenians 
for  their  devotion  for  which  they  paid  so  dearly. 

*  Tzpuravzïov  (Tlieopompus),  ka-iav  (the  oracle  itself),  epstapa 
(Pindar),  -dtdeufftv  (Thucydides). 


464  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

pared  u  to  one  of  those  houses  delivered  up  to  liber¬ 
tinism  and  evil  genius  ;  the  free  and  wise  woman  lan¬ 
guished  in  disdain,  whilst  the  mad  courtesan,  summoned 
to  destroy  everything,  governs  like  a  mistress  and 
overwhelms  the  legitimate  wife  with  insults  and  hu¬ 
miliations.”  * 

Demosthenes  is  to  he  honored  for  having  devoted 
his  life  to  the  ambition  of  preventing  the  ruin  of  the 
Athenian  mind  and  genius  with  her  enslavement.  He 
only  succeeded  in  retarding  it.  But  the  transforma¬ 
tion  of  Greece,  which  was  immediately  disfigured, 
further  justified  the  orator  of  the  Philippics.  He 
had  a  presentiment  of  the  void  which  the  disappear¬ 
ance  of  Athens  would  leave  in  the  world,  and  the 
check  to  civilization  which  her  defeat  caused.  In  fact 
neither  moral  and  national  dignity,  nor  eloquence 
nor  poetry,  nor  even  any  high  inspiration  in  the  arts, 
survived  the  fall  of  the  Attic  city.  The  day  on  which 
she  fell  with  Demosthenes,  the  shining  light  of  the 
Occident  was  extinguished;  long  years  were  to  roll 
by  before  Alexandria  was  to  see  the  Aurora  of  a  new 
dawn. 


*  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus.  ( Memoirs ,  Introduction,  i.) 


CHAPTER  XII. 


CONCLUSION. 

uÜ£prytypd(fOu)  /xèv  rà.yaOw  raurrj  ‘  Set  yàp  'taux;  VTroruTzwaat 
TrpwTov,  elO'iïffTepov  dvaypdfpat.  *  *  *  c0  ypovo;  twv  toiootojv 
eupsTYj;  ‘  oOz'j  v.at  twv  Tsyvwv  yeydvaac;  at  è~tâ6aec;:  Let  us 
content  ourselves  with  this  imperfect  sketch  of  the  good.  It  is, 
perhaps,  necessary  at  first  to  draw  from  it  an  incomplete  image, 
whose  features  will  he  perfected  subsequently.  *  *  *  Time  reveals 
these  progresses;  it  is  the  source  of  the  protection  of  the  arts.” 
(Aristotle,  Nicomachecm  Ethics ,  i,  5). 

ANTIQUITY,  u  the  youth  of  the  world,”  will  al- 
Yl-  ways  seem  young  in  certain  respects;  its  pre¬ 
judices  and  its  customs  are  past,  hut  the  humanity 
which  it  portrayed  still  lives.  The  universal  man 
of  whom  Pascal  speaks,  is  modified  in  his  growth;  hut 
in  his  essence  he  remains  perpetually  the  same.  Also 
the  strange  moral  necessity  constantly  revives  among 
men  the  same  phenomena,  different  in  their  forms, 
but  substantially  identical.* 

*  This  periodical  return  of  the  same  currents  in  human  life  is 
sometimes  aided  by  the  immutable  stability  of  the  physical  nature 
in  the  midst  of  which  man  acts;  to  moral  necessity  is  allied  a  kind 
of  geographical  fatality.  In  our  days,  as  in  the  times  of  Philip, 
Byzantium  is  the  key  of  universal  rule.  It  is  to-day  defended  in  the 
name  of  European  independence  against  the  presumptive  heirs  of 
Peter  the  Great.  Twenty  centuries  ago  Athens  and  Depiosthenes 
defended  it  against  a  prince  of  the  north,  who  longed  for  the  con¬ 
quest  of  the  southern  states,  and  perhaps  that  of  Asia,  which  was 
reserved  for  his  son.  Who  knows  whether  Greece,  the  historical  and 
natural  bulwark  of  the  Bosphorus,  will  not  some  day  receive  the 
custody  of  the  Oriental  Porte?  Byzantium,  the  beautiful  and  envied 
pultana,  has  up  to  this  period  been  trusted  without  danger  to  an 

465 


466 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Thus  the  commotions  of  those  states  which  strug¬ 
gle  to  preserve  or  gain  their  liberty,  will  always  have 
the  same  consequences  in  the  manifestations  of  hu¬ 
man  passion.  The  Macedonian  period  and  the  French 
Revolution  were  destined  to  be  for  Greece  a  triumph, 
for  France  a  cradle  of  political  eloquence.  The  two 
nations,  in  a  national  storm  resulting  differently  for 
each,  were  stirred  in  their  patriotic,  moral  and  re¬ 
ligious  fibers. 

Demosthenes  protested  against  the  iniquities  of  the 
invader  and  the  felony  of  his  Greek  allies.  The  leg¬ 
islative  assembly  rose  up  against  the  manifesto  of 
Brunswick  and  the  emigrants.  The  political  oratoi* 
of  the  Philippics  advised  the  Athenians  to  sacrifice 
strict  right  to  the  superior  cause  of  Hellenic  rights; 
the  Committee  of  Public  Safety  gained  authority  by 
the  example  of  nature,  which  is  interested  in  classes, 
not  in  individuals.  An  unexpected  ally,  Joseph  de 
Maistre,  came  to  justify  these  theories.  The  revolu¬ 
tionary  power,  ua  monster*  of  power,”  said  he,  u  is  at 
the  same  time  a  dreadful  chastisement  for  the  French, 
and  the  only  means  of  saving  France.”  Some  ques¬ 
tioned  themselves  about  Providence,  some  found  it 
convenient  to  abandon  themselves  to  destiny  and  to 
submit  to  the  good  fortune  of  Philip;  others,  the  better 
classes,  held  up  with  Demosthenes  the  claims  of  the 
city  to  the  benevolence  of  the  gods,  and  wished  to 
aid  them  by  a  manly  use  of  liberty.  Thus  the  action 
of  Providence  was  even  apparent  to  the  enemies  of 

effeminate  guardian.  The  Turk,  unable  himself  to  guard  her,  can  no 
longer  protect  her  from  the  covetousness  of  a  manly  neighbor.  The 
European  states  would  be  satisfied  if  the  Greeks  were  strong  enough 
to  become  the  protectors  and  masters  of  Constantinople,  and  wise 
enough  never  to  abuse  her. 


CONCLUSION. 


467 


the  French  revolution.  With  logical  fanaticism  the 
author  of  Considerations  sur  la  France  declared  that 
it  was  “  decreed.”  In  it  he  beheld  an  u  overwhelming 
force  which  surmounted  all  obstacles.  Its  whirlwind 
carried  away  all  that  human  power  could  oppose  to  it 
like  light  chaff.  Ho  one  crossed  its  path  with  im¬ 
punity.”  What  are  we  to  say  of  the  commotions  of 
the  imagination  at  the  sight  of  a  young  conqueror  who, 
full  of  faith  in  his  own  star,  renewed  the  prodigies  of 
Alexander  ?  Destiny  conducted  the  one  from  Pella 
to  the  Indus  and  to  Babylon,  the  other  from  Brienne 
to  the  pyramids  and  to  Moscow.  Both  overran  the 
world  with  resistless  power;  as  formerly  Hellenism, 
so  ’89  was  diffused  through  the  universe. 

Hume,  before  the  most  brilliant  period  of  the  Brit¬ 
ish  parliament,  marked  the  absence  of  political  elo¬ 
quence  in  his  own  country:  u  Great  interests  are  want¬ 
ing  to  us.”  They  were  not  long  wanting  to  England, 
and  especially  to  France.  The  political  movements 
which  supported  the  eloquence  of  Rome  and  Athens 
seem  moderate  compared  with  the  prodigious  renova¬ 
tion  of  which  France  in  1789  gave  the  signal  to  Eu¬ 
rope.  Philosophical  meditation  had  enriched  the  soil 
by  thoroughly  ploughing  it.  To  the  sowing  of  ideas 
succeeded  a  harvest  of  disputed  reforms,  which  were 
propagated  by  eloquence.  Contending  parties  always 
held  speech  in  dread,  and  armed  themselves  with  it 
as  with  an  irresistible  power.  Oratorical  duels  were 
fought  over  the  body  of  royalty,  then  in  the  heart  of 
the  republic,  between  the  moderate  party  and  the  vio¬ 
lent  party.  Mirabeau  and  Barnave,  Yergneaux  and 
Danton,  gave  to  the  tribune  a  resonance  and  an  out¬ 
burst  of  eloquence  in  which  genius  and  passion  were 
more  conspicuous  than  perfect  wisdom  or  virtue.  The 


I 


468  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

gravity  of  the  interests  discussed  and  the  solemnity 
of  the  circumstances  gave  a  grandeur  to  these  ora¬ 
torical  contests  which  was  unknown  to  the  most  im¬ 
posing  debates  of  the  Pnyx  and  the  forum.  Hence 
the  character  of  an  eloquence  whose  vehemence  was 
more  than  Roman,  and  whose  transports  were  some¬ 
times  emphatic,  wras  very  far  from  Athenian  sobriety. 
Things,  men,  orations,  everything  at  that  period, 
affected  gigantic  proportions.  Memories  of  Greece 
haunted  the  imagination.  Sparta,  an  exemplary  city, 
with  its  rigid  virtues,  was  erected  into  a  model  of  pa¬ 
triotism.  She  was  envied  her  Lycurgus.  Hérault  de 
Séclielles  seriously  proposed  to  inspire  himself  with 
the  laws  of  Minos,  as  did  Sparta.  Democratic  Athens 
exercised  less  prestige  on  the  mind.  However,  they 
thought  of  her  in  order  to  threaten  the  dictators  with 
the  dagger  of  Harmodius.  They  purloined  from  the 
Hellenes  an  emblem,  the  Greek  bonnet;  but  how  faith¬ 
fully  revive  their  eloquence  ?  In  the  Convention  tem¬ 
pests  burst  forth  which  overran  the  hall  in  the  name 
of  the  sovereign  people.  Eloquence  is  a  flame  which, 
according  to  Tacitus,  needs  the  nourishment  of  civil 
agitations;  but  if  the  little  flame  be  transformed  into 
a  volcano,  what  does  it  become  ?  Too  often  at  that 
epoch  it  gave  place  to  popular  roaring  or  to  the  im¬ 
passible  reading  of  sinister  reports  in  the  midst  of 
the  silence  of  fear.  Thus  the  civic  exaltation  and  the 
effective  atrocity  of  generous  aspirations  hurried  France 
to  an  inauspicious  crisis.  *  *  *  But  let  us  not  touch 
the  ax. 

Athenian  eloquence,  as  we  have  seen,  often  bore  the 
characteristics  of  the  pamphlet.*  The  same  was  true 

*  “  Political  eloquence  is  censured  for  being  quarrelsome  and  hateful 
(< pda-eyOrjixuvas ).”  (Isocrates,  Anlidosis.  See  ch.  vin.' 


CONCLUSION. 


469 


at  certain  epochs  of  the  political  eloquence  of  the  mod¬ 
erns.  The  great  Irish  agitator,  O’Connell,  sometimes 
seasoned  his  harangues  with  that  wrath  and  violence 
familiar  to  the  ancient  tribune.  The  orators  of  the 
revolution  could  scarcely  refrain  from  these  impetuosi¬ 
ties.  Those,  however,  who  truly  deserve  the  name  of 
orator  rarely  gave  to  their  orations  the  insulting  vio¬ 
lence  familiar  to  the  Agora.  This  relative  moderation 
is  due  to  the  literary  customs  of  the  two  countries. 
The  pamphlet  and  the  oration  were  confounded  at 
Athens  ;  at  Paris  they  were  cultivated  separately. 
What  the  mouth  would  not  have  dared  to  hazard  in 
an  assembly,  however  bold,  the  paper,  which  never 
blushes,  published  throughout  all  France.  Friends 
and  enemies  of  the  new  constitution  had  their  publish¬ 
ers,  —  champions  with  cruel  teeth.  The  Revolutions 
of  France  and  of  Brabant  repaid  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  for  their  outrages  and  bites.  Calumnies  in 
verse  and  in  prose,  ridiculing  or  lacerating  parodies, 
bloody  sarcasms  which  were  to  be  avenged  in  blood, 
malice  and  venom,  nothing  was  wanting  to  these  libels 
that  could  exhale  shameless  hatred. 

The  chair  of  the  new  apostles  was  a  tumbrel  less 
Attic  than  that  from  which  Æschines  insulted  Demos¬ 
thenes.  The  spoken  pamphlet  of  Athens  outraged 
truth  and  decorum,  but  not  modesty.  The  written 
pamphlet  of  the  innovators  and  of  their  adversaries 
despised  all  law.  That  wrath  should  be  thus  mani¬ 
fested  in  ignominious  language  is  too  much;  but  what 
would  this  have  been  if  the  pamphlet  had  not  favored 
what  Aristotle  calls  the  purgation  of  the  passions  and 
preserved  eloquence  ? 

The  liberties  of  the  Athenian  pamphlet  were  a  feeble 
echo  of  the  audacities  of  the  comic  stage.  The  u  di- 


470 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


vine  ”  muse  of  Aristophanes  spat  upon  his  enemies 
with  a  “vast  spittle.”  The  muse  of  André  Chénier 
could  not  refuse  the  temptation  of  “  spitting  upon  their 
names”  and  u  chanting  their  punishment.  ”  Neverthe¬ 
less,  Greek  comedy,  even  with  its  transports,  was 
never  murderous.  Camille  Desmoulins  remarked  with 
his  accustomed  spirit  : 

“  The  Athenians  were  more  indulgent,  and  they  wrote  fewer 
songs,  than  the  French.  Far  from  sending  to  St.  Pelagie, 
and  still  less  to  the  Place  de  Revolution,  the  author  who, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  close  of  the  play,  discharged  the 
most  bloody  arrows  against  Pericles,  Cleon,  Lamor,  *  *  * 
Alcibiades,  against  the  committees  and  presidents  of  sections, 
and  against  the  sections  in  mass,  the  Sans-Calottes  applauded 
with  enthusiasm,  and  no  one  suffered  death  except  those  spec¬ 
tators  who  burst  by  dint  of  laughing.”  * 

*  The  Vieux  Cordelier ,  No.  7  ;  the  Pour  et  le  Contre ,  bearing  on  the 
liberty  of  the  press:  “  How  can  one  be  mistaken  in  this  respect?  As 
for  me,  I  do  not  see  how  a  republic  can  be  recognized  where  the  lib¬ 
erty  of  the  press  does  not  exist.  The  Athenians  were  true  republicans 
by  principle  and  by  instinct.  Not  only  did  the  Athenian  people  per¬ 
mit  speaking  and  writing,  but  I  see,  from  that  which  remains  to  us 
of  their  theatre,  that  they  enjoyed  no  greater  pleasure  than  to  see  rep¬ 
resented  upon  the  stage  their  generals,  their  ministers,  their  philoso¬ 
phers  and  their  committees,  and,  what  is  stranger,  the  representation 
of  themselves.  Read  Aristophanes,  *  *  *  and  you  will  be  aston¬ 
ished  at  the  strange  resemblance  between  Athens  and  democratic 
France.  You  there  find  a  Père  Ducliène  as  at  Paris,  the  red  bonnets, 
the  orators,  the  magistrates,  the  motions  and  the  sittings,  absolutely 
as  ours.  You  will  there  find  the  principal  characters  of  the  day:  in 
a  word,  an  antiquity  of  two  thousand  years  with  which  we  are  con¬ 
temporary.  The  only  resemblance  which  is  wanting  is  that  when 
her  poets  represented  Athens  with  a  long  beard,  *  *  *  under  the  cos¬ 
tume  of  an  old  man,  who  was  called  People,  the  Athenian  people, 
far  from  being  angry,  proclaimed  Aristophanes  the  victor  of  the 
games,  and  encouraged  him  to  create  laughter  at  tlieir  own  expense. 
*  *  *  Remember  that  these  comedies  were  so  caustic  against  the  ultra 
revolutionists,  and  the  occupants  of  the  tribune  at  that  time,  that  there 


CONCLUSION. 


471 


The  Clouds  amused  Socrates,  it  did  not  kill  him. 
The  pamphlet  and  the  eloquence  of  the  French  Revo¬ 
lution  are  as  sharp  as  a  sword.  *  *  *  66  Yes,  monsters, 
I  will  accuse  you  before  nations  with  my  steel  pen, 
glittering  with  the  sacred  fire  of  liberty  which  you 
do  not  know;  I  will  pierce  and  burn  your  entrails.” 
Sometimes  there  was  death  without  phrases,  and 
again  there  were  phrases  that  were  truly  mortal,  such 
as  those  of  St.  Just.  The  same  St.  Just,  in  1789, 
published  a  poem  ( Or  gant )  in  which  the  author  dis¬ 
played  a  vein  of  hilarity,  and  essayed  here  and  there 
the  picture  of  guileless  love.  Robespierre  composed 
verses  which  Dorat  would  not  have  disowned. 
These  literary  distractions  were  not  long  to  amuse 
the  rivals  of  the  Septembrists.  The  Greeks  were  too 
exclusively  artists  to  have  threats  of  death  anywhere 
than  on  their  lips;  generally  outside  of  art  they  took 
few  things  seriously.  The  men  of  the  Revolution 
were,  above  all,  citizens  inflamed  with  their  convic¬ 
tions,  and  were  easily  carried  from  a  sublime  enthu¬ 
siasm  to  fury. 

The  revolutionary  furnace  was  the  crucible  where 

is  one  of  them  which  was  played  under  the  arclion  Stratocles,  430  b.c., 
and  that  if  it  were  translated  to-day,  Hébert  could  assert  to  the  Corde¬ 
liers  that  the  piece  could  only  be  of  yesterday,  and  of  the  invention  of 
Fabre  d’Eglantine,  against  him  and  Ronsin,  and  that  this  is  the 
translator  who  caused  the  dearth  of  subsistence.  *  *  *  Charming 
democracy,  that  of  Athens!  ” 

The  interlocutor  of  Camille  Desmoulins  makes  this  judicious  re¬ 
striction  to  the  claim  of  the  unlimited  liberty  of  the  press:  “The 
French  people,  as  a  mass,  do  not  sufficiently  read  the  journals,  and 
are  not  sufficiently  instructed  and  informed  by  the  primary  schools, 
to  discern  clearly  at  the  first  glance  the  difference  between  Brissot 
and  Robespierre.  Consequently,  I  do  not  know  whether  human 
nature  is  capable  of  that  perfection  that  would  warrant  the  unlimited 
liberty  of  speaking  and  writing.” 


472 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


very  different  materials  were  moulded,  and  from  tliat 
material  came  the  pure  metal  in  which  to-day,  blended 
with  that  of  France,  shines  forth  the  statue  of  our 
French  Republic,  crowned  with  its  triple  device  as 
with  an  aureola.  Our  fathers  in  ’89  had  the  fanati¬ 
cism  of  liberty  and  of  their  country;  the  contempo¬ 
raries  of  Demosthenes  were  unacquainted  with  this 
sacred  ardor.  Sometimes  they  scarred  themselves 
in  order  to  derive  a  little  money  from  the  enemy; 
the  majority  escaped  the  more  serious  scars  of  the 
Macedonian  sword.  They  celebrated  their  independ¬ 
ence  without  sacrificing  themselves  for  it;  they  ap¬ 
plauded  the  country  of  their  ancestors,  but  lost  their 
own.  Our  fathers,  regardless  of  life,  met  their  pun¬ 
ishment  with  the  enthusiasm  of  martyrs.  Nothing 
great  is  accomplished  without  faith.  The  men  of 
the  French  Revolution  had  faith:  their  heroic  abnega¬ 
tion  saved  us.  The  Athenians  wmre  sceptics  in  taste 
and  in  thought;  they  had  not,  like  our  ancestors, 
souls  of  granite  to  check  the  sterile  torrent  of  the 
invasion  which  was  to  submerge  them. 

II.  Revolutions  which  provoke  the  greatest  shocks 
among  men  are  social  revolutions.  That  which  in 
England  in  1650,  and  in  France  in  1789,  was  excep¬ 
tional  and  scandalous,  was  the  rule  and  the  normal 
state  in  Athens.  The  social  strata  were  there  mixed 
and  were  leveled  since  the  time  of  Solon  and  Pericles. 
The  city  was,  therefore,  saved  from  those  dangerous 
eddies  of  a  state  where  the  bottom  aspires  to  take 
its  place  on  the  surface.  Social  peace  was  not  of 
an  irreproachable  clearness,  for  absolute  equality  of 
rights  will  never  suppress  the  inequality  of  conditions 
and  fortunes. 


CONCLUSION. 


473 


Well  settled  in  lier  basis  and  nearly  satisfied  with 
her  condition,  Athens  might  have  derived  from  the 
hatred  of  the  foreigner  an  ardor  similar  to  that  of  her 
social  struggles.  She  might  and  should  have  em¬ 
ployed  against  her  invaders  the  energy  she  had  mani¬ 
fested  in  the  Peloponnesian  war.  She  was  formerly 
impetuous  against  rival  cities,  but  she  was  mild  in 
the  face  of  Philip;  less  devoted  to  liberty  than  to 
repose,  she  only  demanded  the  continuance  of  her 
self-enjoyment  without  labor  or  sacrifice.  The  Greeks 
hated  the  Greeks  more  than  they  detested  the  Mace¬ 
donian.  Municipal  passions  had  been  violent  in  Greece, 
and  would  reappear  upon  every  occasion;  but  there 
was  no  longer  a  passion  for  the  country  of  the  Hel¬ 
lenes.  France,  on  the  contrary,  in  ’92,  felt  both 
social  and  patriotic  passions.  She  had  to  defend  her¬ 
self  against  the  allied  royalists  and  against  the  sover¬ 
eigns;  it  wras  a  gigantic  struggle.  Athens  did  not 
experience  any  of  these  powerful  incentives;  in  vain 
did  Demosthenes  attempt  to  arouse  her  with  his  patri¬ 
otism.  Whatever  might  befall  her,  she  was  assured 
that  she  would  not  be  deprived  of  the  advantages  of 
her  social  organization;  she  therefore  resigned  her¬ 
self  to  the  loss  of  an  independence  whose  preserva¬ 
tion  seemed  to  her  too  expensive. 

Man’s  moral  nature  has  something  of  the  invari¬ 
ability  of  the  laws  of  physical  nature;  but  humanity 
has  the  privilege  of  reconciling  this  constancy  with 
the  law  of  progress:  a  progress  which  is  necessarily 
limited  as  to  the  perfection  of  the  human  soul,  but 
unlimited  in  the  domain  of  the  mind  and  of  social 
amelioration.  The  ancient  republics  were  often  op¬ 
pressive  aristocracies  (thus  Dome)  or  tyrannical  gov¬ 
ernments  ruled  by  demagogues.  The  abuses  of  liberty 
20* 


474  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

inspired  liigli-minded  men  with  a  false  idea  of  the 
true  republican  constitution.  The  Socratics  whose 
ideal  was  Sparta,  demanded  the  rule  of  the  best 
(< apiGTov.pa-ia ).  How,  it  is  known  liow  this  fortunate 
predominance  of  aristocracy  usually  terminated.* 
Aristotle  excluded  artisans  from  the  state; f  in  his 
eyes  the  only  legitimate  citizen  was  he  who  enjoyed 
ease  and  leisure.  The  real  democracy  of  Athens  was 
not  much  better  than  the  one  which  the  philosopher 
fashioned  after  his  own  idea.  Perfect  equality  was 
unknown.  In  oligarchical  states,  the  great  eat  the 
small.  In  the  country  of  Hyperbolos  and  Cleonymes, 
the  small  aimed  to  live  on  the  substance  of  the  great. 
They  had  the  right  to  be  poor  and  mediocre,  but 
not  the  right  to  be  superior  by  wealth  or  merit.  What 
would  the  equality  have  become,  if  some  citizens 
were  permitted  to  rise  above  the  common  level  by 
their  virtue  ? 

This  distrust  in  eminent  merit  seemed  so  naturally 
inherent  in  Athenian  democracy,  that  Aristotle  praised 
ostracism  as  a  law  of  humanity.  J  In  fact,  this  process 
of  elimination  was  better  than  the  leveling  by  decapi¬ 
tation  which  Tarquin  enjoyed;  but  it  was  too  much 
that  the  proscription  of  excellent  capacities  should 
seem  necessary.  A  very  eminent  citizen,  not  having 

*  “  If  you  desire  a  good  constitution,  you  will  first  see  that  the  wise 
enact  the  laws;  then  that  the  good  repress  the  bad  and  deliberate 
upon  state  affairs,  without  permitting  the  stupid  to  offer  their  advice, 
to  harangue  or  appear  in  the  assembly.  But  the  immediate  result 
of  these  excellent  measures  will  be  that  the  people  will  fall  into 
bondage  (dou?,eia>)."  Xenophon,  Government  of  the  Athenians. 

f  Politics ,  iii,  3.  Antiquity  experienced  more  revolting  maxims 
than  the  exclusion  of  artisans  from  the  state:  the  exclusion  of  weak 
children  from  life. 

X  Politics ,  iii,  8. 


CONCLUSION. 


475 


any  position  clearly  defined  in  tlie  state  by  tlie  Athe¬ 
nian  law,  invaded  and  usurped  them  all.  A  very  emi¬ 
nent  citizen,  in  a  modern  republic,  concentrates  his 
powerful  activity  in  his  functions;  he  does  not  en¬ 
croach  on  the  authority  of  another.  He  has  liis  sphere 
determined;  that  of  a  great  man  at  Athens  was  not 
determined.  When  the  united  merits  of  all  the 
citizens  could  not  equal  the  merit  of  one,  it  was 
necessary  to  repudiate  this  superior  being,  or  to  sub¬ 
mit  to  him.  Athens  remained  forty  years  submissive 
to  Pericles;  but  ostracism  generally  saved  her  from 
the  danger  of  extraordinary  talents.  The  ship  Argo ,  on 
the  principle  of  equality,  refused  to  receive  Hercules 
because  he  was  much  heavier  than  his  companions. 
The  modern  ship  of  state  is  so  strongly  constructed 
that  it  can  sustain  the  most  powerful  characters. 
To-day  preeminent  merit  has  its  place  in  our  democ¬ 
racy.  Far  from  excluding  it  from  the  state,  it  is 
desired.  Themistocles,  Cimon  and  Aristides  were 
banished  from  the  city  of  Minerva  to  preserve  the 
public  safety.  To-day  they  would  be  unanimously 
sent  to  Parliament,  if  they  were  not  already  there. 

Athenian  democracy  saw  a  menace  and  a  social  dan¬ 
ger  in  the  riches  of  individuals.*  The  political  phi¬ 
losophers  labored  to  regulate  and  restrain  it.  Syco¬ 
phants  toiled,  after  their  fashion,  to  solve  the  problem 

*  Formerly,  says  the  author  of  the  Antidosis,  people  acquired 
wealth  in  order  to  be  considered.  “  Now  they  must  refrain  from 
wealth  as  from  a  crime;  if  they  do  not  justify  themselves  thereupon, 
they  are  lost.  *  *  *  I  could  count  more  wealthy  men  deprived  of 
their  fortunes  than  guilty  men  punished  for  their  misdemeanors.” 
He  bitterly  complains  that  he  himself  is  taxed  above  his  resources. 
He  would  have  himself  considered  less  wealthy  than  was  Gorgias, 
whose  fortune  did  not  exceed  $3,09G.  However,  he  never  had  a  wife 
or  children,  and  lived  exempt  from  this  tax  (hiTuupyiaç),  the  longest 
continued  and  most  expensive  of  all. 


476 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


by  making  a  breach  in  opulence  for  tlieir  own  profit. 
Hot  content  with  extorting  money  from  the  allied 
cities  desirous  of  purchasing  the  protection  of  orators 
who  were  heeded  by  the  multitude,  their  envy  and 
cupidity  made  them  covetous  of  the  goods  of  their 
fellow-citizens.  It  is  easily  seen  from  the  Greek  ora¬ 
tors  how  the  flatterers  of  the  rabble  made  war  on  the 
owners  of  the  silver  mines  of  Attica,  and  farmed  them 
by  extortion  *  One  of  the  most  delicate  questions  of 
modern  society  is  the  relations  of  labor  and  capital. 
This  difficult  problem  was  ignored  by  the  ancient  re¬ 
publics,  in  which  labor  was  almost  the  exclusive  lot 
of  the  slave.  Athens,  nevertheless,  had  her  artisans. 
Rome,  the  proud  aristocrat,  despised  them;  Plato,  the 
disdainful  dreamer,  regulated  them  in  the  last  rank  of 
the  social  scale.  He  admitted  them  only  as  workmen 
to  serve  him.  Socrates,  a  true  sage,  reinstated  them 
by  eulogizing  manual  laborers.  Athens,  not  being 
able  to  live  like  Pome  on  the  spoils  of  the  world,  was 
obliged  to  work,  however  little.  The  social  question 
at  Athens,  therefore,  offered  a  particular  difficulty. 
We  have  seen  how  Demosthenes  essayed  to  hold  the 
balance  equal  between  the  opposed  pretensions  of  the 
rich  and  the  poor,  and  for  want  of  a  just  conciliation, 
pursued  the  good  of  the  state,  f 

*  These  abuses  and  disorders  led  Xenophon  to  propose  the  work 
ing  of  the  mines  by  the  state,  with  the  consent  and  to  the  profit  of  the 
people.  *  *  *  “Thus  all  the  Athenians  will  be  able  to  derive  their 
subsistence  from  the  public  revenues.  *  *  *  I  declare  that  thereby 
our  commonwealth  will  become  not  only  wealthy,  but  more  mild, 
more  friendly  to  order,  and  better  prepared  for  war.”  “  It  is  just 
that  the  poor  and  the  people  at  Athens  should  have  the  advantage 
over  the  nobles  and  the  wealthy;  for  it  is  the  people  who,  with  their 
oars,  propel  the  vessels  and  who  constitute  the  power  of  the  com¬ 
monwealth.”  Although  somewhat  ironical,  this  reflection  is  just. 

t  See  ch.  iv. 


CONCLUSION. 


477 


The  public  welfare  also  inspired  Hyperides  with 
wise  words.  The  informers,  by  imposing  upon  the 
owners  of  mines,  forced  them  to  abandon  their  work¬ 
ing,  to  the  detriment  of  the  public  treasury.  Was  it 
serving  the  state  to  molest  individuals  in  this  manner  ? 
u  The  best  citizen  is  not  the  man  who,  in  return  for 
a  little  money  (proceeds  of  fines  and  of  confiscations), 
causes  a  detriment  to  the  general  interests  of  the  city,* 
nor  the  man  wdio  furnishes  temporary  resources  and 
deprives  Athens  of  her  legitimate  revenues.  It  is  the 
man  who  has  a  regard  for  the  future  interest  of  his 
country,  for  the  concord  of  the  citizens,  and  for  your 
glory.  There  are  people  whom  all  this  does  not 
trouble.  They  deprive  the  industrious  of  the  fruit 
of  their  labor,  and  pretend  to  enrich  the  city  while 
they  are  preparing  indigence  for  it;  for  if  p>roperty 
and  the  accumulation  due  to  economy  become  a  cause 
of  alarm ,  who  will  expose  himself  to  danger ?”  The 
Athenian  people,  jealous  of  the  revenues  of  miners, 
attempted  to  deprive  them  of  their  income  for  the 
benefit  of  the  treasury,  from  which  they  themselves 
derived  in  part  their  subsistence  and  the  gratuity  of 
their  pleasures.  This  was  a  strife  organized  between 
capital  and  idleness.  The  question  of  the  respective 
rights  of  capital  and  labor  is  not  settled  in  our  day, 
but  it  will  undoubtedly  have  its  solution  also,  wdiich 
will  be  another  proof  of  the  superiority  of  modern 
democracy. 

And,  now,  what  advantages  has  modern  democracy 
over  Athenian  democracy  ?  Justice  is  not  at  the 
mercy  of  skillful  speech,  as  it  was  before  the  heliasts. 
Politics  is  in  the  hands  not  of  frivolous  and  suspected 

*  The  treasury  deducted  one  twenty-fourth  of  the  revenues  of  the 
mines. 


478  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

orators,  but  of  experienced  politicians.  The  man  and 
the  citizen  are  distinct;  private  enmities  do  not  trouble 
the  state  within  or  compromise  its  security  abroad. 
The  nation  rises  above  the  greatest  individual  intel¬ 
lects.  The  government  of  Athens  was  a  great  con¬ 
vention  formed  of  all  the  citizens  and  without  con¬ 
trol, —  a  dangerous  balance,  whose  jerks  in  times  of 
trying  crises  could  overthrow  the  state.  Modern  re¬ 
publics  are  balanced;  a  prudent  equilibrium  unites 
stability  and  animation  in  them.  Their  course,  regu¬ 
lated  by  harmony,  follows  the  course  of  time.  The 
Athenian  people  repudiated  their  demagogues,  who 
were  often  unworthy  favorites  and  extemporary  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  city,  without  proper  authority  or 
regular  mandates.  To-day  the  governess  of  the  city 
is  public  opinion,  and  this  queen  governs,  provided 
with  the  most  excellent  political  organ, —  universal 
suffrage, —  an  instrument  decisive  and  pacifying. 

III.  The  progress  of  moral  sense  is  not  less  appar¬ 
ent  than  political  and  social  progress;  a  manifest  proof 
of  this  is  found  in  the  different  judgments  which  the 
Athenians  and  we  pass  on  Demosthenes  as  a  man  and 
an  orator.  In  order  to  properly  judge  an  ancient  man, 
we  must  first  replace  him  in  his  own  sphere;  we  must 
go  to  him,  instead  of  bringing  him  to  us,  and  see  him  as 
his  contemporaries  saw  him.  Therefore  we  have  often 
used  the  testimony  of  Aristotle,  a  powerful  genius,  in 
whom  converged,  as  in  a  concentric  focus,  all  the  ideas 
of  his  century,  illuminated  by  the  light  of  the  past.* 
His  work,  a  genuine  encyclopaedia,  is  the  Sum  of  Greek 

*  For  his  Politics  alone,  lie  made  a  collection  of  the  constitutions 
of  158,  or,  according  to  some,  of  250  democratic,  oligarchical,  aristo¬ 
cratic  and  tyrannic  states. 


CONCLUSION. 


479 


philosophy.  Now,  ancient  philosophy  was  universal 
science.  We  cannot,  then,  cite  a  more  reliable  witness 
of  the  feelings  and  ideas  of  the  atmosphere  in  which 
Demosthenes  lived.  But  while  criticism  remains  faith¬ 
ful  to  the  principle  of  consulting  the  past,  it  does  not 
abdicate  its  right  of  personal  appreciation.  Demosthe¬ 
nes,  then,  remains  amenable  to  the  moral  sense  and 
taste  of  modern  critics. 

The  Athenians  were  little  affected  by  certain  weak¬ 
nesses  of  Demosthenes, —  they  found  the  same  in  them¬ 
selves.  Benign  moralists,  far  from  exacting  that  he 
should  be  better  than  his  time,  were  disposed,  by  a  feel¬ 
ing  of  their  own  infirmities,  to  plead  extenuating  cir¬ 
cumstances  in  his  favor.  The  author  of  the  Philippics 
fled  at  Chæronea.  Nature  and  destiny  shared  this  fault 
with  him.  We  are  born  courageous  or  timid,  as  we  are 
born  dark  or  fair.  He  could  not  resist  the  tempta¬ 
tion  to  acquire  money, —  never  did  Philip’s  gold  soil 
his  hands.  He  loved  pleasures, —  well  !  who  does  not? 
The  virtue  of  the  citizen  is  of  more  importance  than 
that  of  the  private  man.  As  a  political  orator,  he  did 
not  recoil  before  a  falsehood, —  the  object  of  eloquence 
is  victory.  He  forgot  himself  to  such  a  degree  that  he 
followed  Æscliines’  example,  and  lavished  insults  upon 
him.  Invective  was  an  integral  part  of  democratic  lib¬ 
erty;  it  was  not  so  essential  to  enlighten  the  judges  as 
to  prejudice  them. 

On  these  general  points  the  moderns  judge  Demos¬ 
thenes  with  less  indulgence  than  his  fellow-citizens  did. 
They  are  severer  in  regard  to  moral  weakness,  and  have 
the  greatest  respect  for  propriety  and  truth.  Modern 
political  eloquence  attacks  opinions,  not  persons.  Mind¬ 
ful  of  dignity,  which  is  a  part  of  parliamentary  dignity, 
it  commands  respect  by  respecting  itself.  A  political 


480 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


orator  who  is  to-day  convicted  of  public  falsehood, 
loses  his  honor  and  credit.  The  Athenians  were  little 
moved  by  the  impostures  of  their  orators,  and  saw  in 
these  a  means  of  delusion  which  custom  justified.  u  The 
aim  of  the  architect  is  to  give  to  his  work  that  harmony 
which  satisfies  the,-  perceptions  of  the  senses,  and  as 
far  as  possible,  to  invent  methods  which  will  deceive 
the  sight  by  aiming  at  symmetry  and  everything  that  is 
not  real  but  apparent.”  The  theory  of  delusion  was 
not  confined,  in  Greece,  to  architecture;  to-day  decep¬ 
tions  are  banished  from  eloquence. 

The  Athenians  did  not  admire  Demosthenes  more 
than  we  do  to-day;  we  perhaps  appreciate  him  more 
by  admiring  him  in  a  different  manner.  Ancient  criti¬ 
cism  was  confined  to  a  narrow  channel,  that  of  style, — 
the  choice  of  words,  the  arrangement  of  sentences,  har¬ 
mony:  such  were  its  preferable  objects.  It  compared 
as  “engravers  and  sculptors”*  the  most  dissimilar 
authors,  such  as  Isocrates,  Plato  and  Demosthenes. 
It  gave  special  attention  to  the  beauties  of  diction. 
Lucullus  excused  himself  to  Atticus  for  the  faults  found 
in  his  history  written  in  Greece.  He  said  that  he  had 
sown  barbarisms  and  solecisms  in  it  to  show  clearly 
that  it  was  the  work  of  a  Roman.  A  Greek  would 
never  have  dreamed  of  carrying  the  love  of  local  color- 

*  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  On  the  Excellence  of  Demosthenes'  Elo¬ 
cution,  ch.  51.  Cicero  himself  did  not  escape  this  fault.  He  sepa¬ 
rated  the  history  of  eloquence  from  political  history,  and  saw  only 
differences  of  style  in  orators  who  were  separated  by  an  interval  of 
one  hundred  and  twenty  years,  Appius  Cæcus  and  Servius  Galba 
(De  Claris  Oratoribus ,  14  and  23).  He  commences  the  paragraph  on 
Cato  the  orator  by  saying:  “I  leave  aside  the  citizen,  the  senator  and 
the  general.”  What  remains?  Style  ( Ibidem ,  17).  Plutarch,  who 
gave  less  attention  than  Cicero  to  elocution,  gave  a  juster  account  of 
Cato’s  eloquence.  (Life  of  Cato,  10.) 


CONCLUSION. 


481 


ing  so  far.  The  worship  of  form  was  the  brilliant  idol¬ 
atry  of  the  Hellenes. 

The  reputation  of  Isocrates,*  and  the  sovereign 
authority  which  he  enjoyed,  astonish  us  to-day.  Imag¬ 
ine  a  modern  publicist  profiting  by  his  great  fame  in 
order  to  address  one  of  the  three  emperors  with  a  great 
written  political  oration,  containing  parentheses  of  this 
nature:  “I  pray  your  majesty  will  pardon  me  for 
using  metaphors  and  metonymies  so  imperfectly.  My 
years  are  the  cause  of  it.  I  no  longer  have  the  vigor 
or  talent  of  youth.”  This,  however,  was  the  condition 
of  Isocrates,  the  great  master  of  the  art  of  diction.  lie 
wrote  a  long  programme,  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  to  the 
Macedonian  king,  in  which  he  pledged  himself  to  give 
a  direct  contradiction  to  the  “impertinent  dreamers” 
who  accused  the  king  of  meditating  the  enslavement  of 
Greece,  and  to  turn  his  forces  and  those  of  the  Hellenes 
against  the  Persians  : 

“  We  have  not  given  to  this  oration  the  dress  of  harmo¬ 
nious  cadences,  nor  that  of  varied  figures.  I  employed  them 
in  my  youth,  and  instructed  others  in  the  ornaments  which 
render  eloquence  agreeable  and  persuasive.  To-day  I  cannot 
use  them.  My  age  prevents  me.”t 

And  who  asked  these  ornaments  of  you,  candid  old 
man  ? 

Modern  readers  do  not  clearly  comprehend  the  thou¬ 
sand  niceties  and  delicacies  of  ancient  diction.  Those 
minute  precepts,  that  curious  refinement  of  number, 
of  assonances,  of  alliterations,  and  so  many  other  arts 
which  were  taught  and  carefully  practiced,  and  which 

*“I  have  seen  among  my  pupils  orators,  generals,  princes  and 
kings.”  (Isocrates,  Antidosis.)  They  came  from  Sicily,  and  even 
from  the  Pontus,  to  be  instructed  in  his  school. 

t  Oration  to  Philip. 

21 


482 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


the  ancients  made  state  affairs,  are  now  disdained  even 
in  our  academies.*  The  Greeks  and  Romans  were 
charmed  with  them,  and  applauded  them  in  their 
gravest  political  speakers.  When  C.  Gracchus  spoke 
in  public  he  had  a  musician  concealed  behind  him,  who 
quickly  gave  him  a  note  on  an  ivory  flute,  in  order  to 
raise  his  voice  if  it  fell  too  low,  or  to  moderate  it  in 
the  course  of  stormy  debates,  f  In  place  of  this  musi¬ 
cian,  the  regulator  of  the  orator’s  intonations,  modern 
assemblies  employ  a  president,  who  represses  the  flights 
of  speech,  not  those  of  the  voice,  and  prevents  the 
storms  which  the  tribune’s  flute  did  not  avert. 

Modern  eloquence  has  no  ostentation.  It  has  more 
regard  for  things  than  for  their  envelope.  Like  Ghat- 
ham,  Fox  and  Pitt,  the  orators  of  the  French  revolu¬ 
tion  generally  improvised  and  disdained  all  revisions 
for  the  sake  of  impression.  Even  now,  when  the 
political  fever  is  slumbering,  eloquence  owes  little  to 
art.  The  time  is  no  more  when  the  author  of  the 
Panegyric  on  Athens  spent  ten  years  in  writing  a 


*  Aristotle,  Rhetoric,  iii,  9,  fin.  The  Latins  followed,  and  on  some 
points,  perhaps,  surpassed  the  Greeks.  Quintilian,  in  a  chapter  On 
Action,  teaches  his  orator  the  language  of  the  fingers,  not  forgetting 
the  thumb,  which  is  also  capable  of  certain  effects:  “To  draw  the 
index  near  the  thumb,  and  to  press  its  extremity  upon  the  right  side 
of  the  thumb-nail,  relaxing  the  other  fingers,  is  a  gesture  expressive 
of  approbation,  etc.  etc.  *  *  *  ”  (The  lesson  On  Philosophy  given  to 
M.  Jourdain  is  here  surpassed.)  Such  a  disposition  of  the  fingers 
expresses  aversion  ;  such,  modesty.  The  author  takes  the  trouble  to 
inform  us  that  Demosthenes  undoubtedly  pronounced  the  humble 
exordium  of  the  oration  On  the  Crown  “  with  the  first  four  fingers 
slightly  closed  at  the  extremity,  his  hand  not  far  from  his  mouth,” 
etc.  He  also  states  in  what  measure  it  is  proper  to  strike  one’s  sides 
and  to  stamp  one’s  feet,  “  movements  which  are  suited  to  indigna¬ 
tion  and  awaken  the  judges.  ( Institution  Oratoire,  xi,  3.) 

\  De  Oratore,  iii,  00. 


CONCLUSION. 


488 


work  of  fifteen  pages.  To-day  we  would  scarcely  de¬ 
vote  ten  hours  to  the  preparation  of  an  oration.  Atti¬ 
cism  was  simple  and  natural.  It  shunned  large,  sono¬ 
rous  words,  and  resplendent  outbursts  of  eloquence. 
Its  familiarity  was  always  allied,  in  the  shades  and  in 
the  contexture  of  the  whole,  to  an  exquisite  art.  It 
might  sometimes  be  pronounced  abandonné ,  and  nég¬ 
ligé.  It  was  the  négligé  of  a  woman  naturally  beauti¬ 
ful,  but  perfect  in  the  art  of  pleasing.  Modern  sim¬ 
plicity  is  naïve  and  unpremeditated.  Thought  and 
sentiment  alone  attract. 

P.  L.  Courrier  said  of  American  journalism  that  it 
made  use  of  the  same  style,  whether  the  question  was 
a  reform  in  the  state,  a  coalition  of  European  powers 
against  liberty,  or  “the  best  soil  for  sowing  turnips.” 
Our  modern  political  orators  do  not  speak  entirely  in 
the  same  tone  in  a  debate  on  the  constitution,  or  on 
the  appointment  of  a  door-keeper.  Nevertheless,  their 
eloquence  always  has  a  frankness  that  is  foreign  to  the 
artistic  cases  of  the  ancients.  The  orator  of  to-day 
does  not  lecture  ;  still  less  does  he  harangue.  lie 
exposes,  he  explains,  he  opens  his  thought,  he  opens 
his  heart.  Ilis  is  an  attentive,  convincing  conversa¬ 
tion.  He  cannot  and  does  not  wish  to  use  it  otherwise. 
Time  flies,  affairs  are  pressing  upon  him.  His  speeches 
ought  to  be  his  acts.  He  addresses  himself  not  to  his 
hearers,  but  to  his  citizens.  Like  them,  he  owes  his 
entire  attention  to  the  administration  and  to  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  his  country.  Is  this  not  a  commendable 
progress  ? 

The  artistic  orator  is  sometimes  tempted  to  make 
lamentable  sacrifices  to  his  art,  and  he  gives  to  his 
audience  æsthetic  impressions,  which  indiscreetly  draw 
them  from  the  public  interest  under  discussion.  An- 


484 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


cient  eloquence  avoided  dry  discussions,  technical  de¬ 
tails  and  figures.  It  submitted  to  the  same  yoke  as 
did  history  according  to  the  conception  of  Herodotus, 
Livy  and  Tacitus.  Modern  history  is  no  longer  a 
branch  of  eloquence  grafted  with  poetry.  It  is  the 
mirror  of  the  entire  organization  of  the  state,  the  ex¬ 
act  and  expressive  relief  of  the  different  elements  of 
the  material,  political,  intellectual,  and  moral  life  of 
a  people.  Speech  has  shared  with  history  the  benefit 
of  this  transformation.  Rhetoric  is  no  more;  elo¬ 
quence  is  living,  nourished  more  than  ever  in  France 
and  America  by  the  excellent  practice  of  affairs  in 
liberty.  Who  has  not  during  the  past  years  been 
moved  by  the  reading  of  orations  which  political  wis¬ 
dom  and  patriotism  inspired  in  the  orators  of  our  par¬ 
liament  ?  Some  of  these  harangues  (a  man  familiar 
with  Greek  eloquence  will  be  pardoned  for  the  rash¬ 
ness  of  this  judgment)  approach,  in  certain  respects, 
the  masterpieces  of  Demosthenes.  Maturity  and  fer¬ 
tility  of  thought,  force  of  truth  and  captivating  rap¬ 
ture,  are  equal.  Why  are  they  not  equally  admired 
and  considered  as  fine  as  the  ancient  efforts  ?  Because 
they  are  written  in  English  or  French,  and  are  not 
two  thousand  years  old. 

The  purely  Attic  beauties  of  Demosthenes  are  al¬ 
most  lost  to  us.*  They  often  possess  imperceptible 
shades;  but  there  are  imperishable  beauties  which  wfill 
continue  to  resist  the  modifications  of  taste  and  the 
translators.  His  good  sense,  his  logical  force,  his 
generous  passion,  will  render  Demosthenes  famous 

*  Isocrates  (Antidosis)  cites  a  fragment  of  an  oration  of  his  youth. 
“This  passage,”  says  he,  “  is  of  an  elocution  more  ornate  than  that 
which  you  have  just  heard.”  This  difference  certainly  did  not  escape 
the  Greeks.  Even  forewarned,  the  modern  reader  can  scarcely  com¬ 
prehend  it. 


CONCLUSION. 


485 


forever.  Time  has  shaken  off  the  delicate  charms  of 
his  diction  like  so  many  flowers;  the  oak  remains  firm, 
supported  by  its  powerful  roots,  adorned  with  its  vig¬ 
orous  branches  and  the  majesty  of  its  crown.  It  is 
like  the  Parthenon  robbed  of  the  fragile  ornaments  of 
its  polychromy,  an  inevitable  obliteration,  which  does 
not  in  the  least  deprive  the  marble  of  its  perfect  beauty. 

The  orator  and  the  politician  are  inseparable  in  De¬ 
mosthenes.*  They  are  both  conspicuous  in  his  acts 
and  in  his  orations.  In  both  two  qualities  are  pre- 

*  Demosthenes  at  times  hacl  concentrated  in  his  hands  all  the 
public  powers,  except  that  of  strategus.  After  Chæronea  he  could 
exculpate  himself  from  the  disaster  by  throwing  it  upon  the  generals. 
I  was  right  in  advising  war.  If  you  bave  been  conquered  it  is  be¬ 
cause  others  have  not  done  their  duty.  In  preceding  ages  this  excuse 
would  have  been  impossible.  When  Themistocles,  Cimon,  Pericles, 
Alcibiades,  or  Nicias,  proposed  a  military  expedition,  it  was  always 
understood  that  they  did  not  refuse  to  take  charge  of  it.  They  as¬ 
sumed  the  double  responsibility  of  the  counsel  and  of  the  execution. 
Thucydides  (iv,  28)  has  shown  how  the  currier  Cleon,  taken  at  his 
word  by  the  people,  was  decreed  strategus  and  victorious  strategus  in 
spite  of  himself.  In  Demosthenes’  time  the  Athenians  did  not  exact 
of  their  political  orators  that  they  should  be  both  counsellors  and 
men  of  action;  therefore  they  never  imposed  the  military  command 
on  Æschines,  although  in  his  youth  he  had  borne  arms  successfully. 
Demosthenes,  not  being  a  military  man,  had  his  general,  Diopithes. 
This  distinction  between  the  thought  which  inspires  and  the  hand 
which  executes  is,  in  certain  respects,  a  good  one.  Sometimes  the 
people  accuse  of  versatile  inconsistency  the  men  of  opposition  who 
have  become  men  of  government, —  a  reproach  ill  founded.  The  one 
sees  above  all  things  the  absolute  good,  the  other  is  placed  in  contact 
with  practical  difficulties.  The  opposition  unrestrained  in  its  ideal 
conceptions,  and  the  government  which  has  its  hands  bound  by  real 
necessities,  represent  the  perpetual  dualism  of  ideas  and  facts  of  the 
desirable  and  the  possible.  Each  is  legitimate;  their  antagonism 
conspires  to  the  welfare  of  the  state  by  preventing  the  exclusive  and 
equally  dangerous  triumph  of  chimerical  theory  or  of  a  narrow 
positivism.  The  true  politician  finds  that  medium  which,  in  cor¬ 
recting  the  two  systems,  the  one  by  the  other,  reconciles  them. 


486 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GKEECE. 

dominant:  warmth  of  passion  and  wisdom.  True  to 
the  principle  of  the  inviolability  of  national  dignity, 
manifesting  an  invariable  perseverance  in  his  desired 
aim,  he  was  judicious  and  versatile  in  the  employment 
of  means.  His  heart  was  proud  and  impetuous,  his 
mind  was  serene  and  penetrating.  Tie  did  not  rush 
into  war  like  a  mad  blind  man  /  he  well  knew  when 
to  advise  peace.  He  hated  Philip  instinctively  and 
heartily.  While  his  soul  was  enraged  against  him  his 
mind  meditated.  He  saw  where  the  crafty  policy  of 
the  Macedonian  would  insensibly  drag  Greece.  He 
marvelously  comprehended  the  carefully  dissembled 
obstinacy  of  the  cunning  and  insinuating  invader  of 
he  Attic  city.  He  had*  a  presentiment  of  the  incura- 
able  wound  which  the  surrender  of  Athens  would  in¬ 
flict  upon  the  Hellenic  world,  then  the  grandest  ex¬ 
pression  of  humanity. 

Equally  inclined  to  a  belief  in  fortune  and  provi¬ 
dence,  his  religious  sincerity  incapable  of  prejudices 
and  selfish  considerations,  united  two  pieties  which  in¬ 
sincerity  alone  could  separate, —  the  religion  of  the 
gods  and  the  religion  of  his  country.  Free  to  choose 
between  the  advantages  of  submission  and  the  bitter¬ 
ness  of  the  struggle,  he  struggled  during  thirty  years 
against  enemies  of  his  country  devoid  of  mercy  and 
exhaustless,  always  conquered  and  yet  worthy  of  con¬ 
quering.  His  gravity  contended  against  the  levity  of 
the  Athenians;  his  vigor  against  their  feebleness;  his 
patriotic  anxieties  against  their  indifference.  He  con¬ 
sumed  his  forces  in  enlightening  them  and  inspiring 
them  with  the  spirit  of  their  ancestors,  which  seemed 
to  be  centered  in  his  breast;  the  energies  and  sufferings 
of  his  country  sought  refuge  in  his  heart.  On  the  point 
of  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  Macedonians,  he  did 


CONCLUSION. 


487 


not  invoke  the  men  who  abandoned  him,  but  the  gods 
whom  he  honored  by  loving  his  country.  Iiis  destiny 
was  stamped  with  an  unfortunate  fatality;  his  heroic 
character  was  more  than  tragic.  When  he  was  van¬ 
quished  at  Chæronea,  the  Athenians  continued  to  see 
in  him  their  benefactor,  and  it  was  just.  If  they  had 
not  faced  this  disaster  “in  emulation  of  a  triumph,” 
they  would  have  fallen  to  the  level  of  the  Messenians 
and  the  Thessalians,  instead  of  holding  in  Greece  and 
in  history  that  rank  of  supremacy  in  which  their  fore¬ 
fathers  had  placed  them,  and  in  which  the  esteem  of 
posterity  conferred  upon  them  in  their  turn  the  reward 
which  they  had  reserved  for  patriotism.  At  the  call 
of  Demosthenes  they  marched  forth  to  contend  for  the 
crown,  and  they  gained  it. 

If  the  moral  weaknesses  and  the  political  passions  of 
Athens  are  not  entirely  unknown  to  us,  our  state  is 
better  constituted  than  she  was;  our  men  and  citizens 
are  better.  It  was  due  to  the  soul  and  genius  of  the 
orator  of  the  Philippics ,  that  Athens,  in  her  struggle 
with  Macedonia,  did  not  fail;  but  her  own  infirmity 
forced  her  to  succumb;  her  past  mistakes*  and  her 
present  weakness  weighed  equally  on  her.  In  order  to 
conquer  or  to  survive  her  defeat,  she  must  have  changed; 
one  man  alone,  however  devoted  and  powerful,  could 
not  bring  about  in  her  this  metamorphosis.  France, 
in  her  struggle  with  a  modern  Macedonia,  has  survived 
unparalleled  reverses  because  the  causes  of  the  disas¬ 
ters  were  not  inherent  in  her.  To  recover,  she  had 
only  to  shake  off  the  yoke.  Despotism  cut  down  the 
tree  in  order  to  gather  the  fruit;  by  virtue  of  its  living 
roots  and  a  wise  cultivation,  in  a  few  years  the  tree 
sprouted  again,  and  to-day  it  bears  better  fruit.  De- 

*  The  expedition  to  Sicily  and  Ægos  Potamos  nearly  ruined  Athens. 


488 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE 


mosthenes  at  least  saved  the  honor  of  his  country.  In 

1 1 

1870  France  held  her  honor  safe,  and  to-day  we  see  it 
increasing  in  respect.  When  Demosthenes  attempted 
to  arouse  the  courage  of  his  fellow-citizens  by  urging 
the  efficient  energy  of  human  counsels  against  fortune, 
they  reminded  him  of  Philip’s  invincible  destiny. 
Modern  nations  know  how  to  have  faith  in  Providence 
and  liberty.  God  and  France  protect  France. 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

[The  Words  Between  Brackets  Refer  to  the  Notes.] 


page 

Translator’s  Preface . .  5 

Author's  Preface  ..........  7 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The  three  ages  of  Attic  eloquence. 

Sovereign  power  of  speech  in  Greece. —  The  usurpers 
of  the  sword  supplanted  by  orators. —  Spontaneity  of 
eloquence  favored,  from  the  heroic  ages,  by  the  social 
and  central  location  of  Greece. —  Correlative  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  democratic  constitution  and  eloquence 
at  Athens. —  Solon’s  constitution,  [the  law  against 
bachelors]. —  The  constitution  of  Clisthenes. —  Influ¬ 
ence  of  the  Median  wars . 15-24 

Candidates  chosen  by  lot. —  [Salamis  and  the  democratic 
expansion  judged  by  Plato.]  —  The  social  strata. — 
Ephialtes  and  Pericles. —  Native  institutions  and  dis¬ 
positions .  24-28 

The  three  ages  of  Attic  eloquence. — Why  cultivated  elo¬ 
quence  was  late  in  Greece. —  Spontaneous  generations 
and  artificial  reproductions. — An  intimate  union  of 
Greek  arts  and  practical  life. —  Utilitarian  aesthetics 

[Aristotle’s  definition  of  beauty] . 28-32 

First  Period. —  Eloquence  spoken,  not  written;  exclu¬ 
sively  practical,  not  erudite. —  Pericles,  his  masters  — 
[some  of  his  sayings]. —  Pericles  at  the  tribune.  .  32-30 

489 


490 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Second  Period. — Written  eloquence  (Antiphon)  taught 
as  an  art. —  Logographers  and  rhetoricians. —  Bor¬ 
rowed  speeches  and  panegyrics. —  The  sophists;  their 
influence  both  salutary  and  pernicious. —  Restoration 
of  the  scientific  method. —  Aristophanes,  the  conser¬ 
vative  poet. —  Analysis  of  thought  and  language. — 
Isocrates  and  the  Trojan  horse. —  Qualities  and  de¬ 
fects. —  Subtilties  and  gracefulness. —  Sicilian  affec¬ 
tation  at  Athens. —  Idealists  and  empirics. —  Fruits 
of  scepticism. —  [The  “  amiable  queen  ”  of  Lamettrie. 

—  D’H  olbach ,  Hel vetius.] —  Protagoras. —  Callicles. — 

The  sophisms  of  Athenian  political  morality  expiated 

at  Chæronea.  . 36-46 

Third  Period. —  The  Attics. —  The  law  against  pathetic 
pleading. —  The  artistic  and  militant  eloquence  of  the 
Macedonian  epoch. — What  are  we  to  think  of  the 
joint  responsibility  of  eloquence  and  morals  ? — Taste 
and  moral  sense. —  Greece  in  the  time  of  Miitiades; 
of  Alcibiades;  of  Philip. —  Taste  in  France  in  the 
seventeenth  century. —  The  zenith. —  Æschines  and 
Demosthenes. —  Genius  and  patriotism.  .  .  .  46-51 

CHAPTER  II. 

PHILIP. - THE  ATHENIANS. 

Demosthenes  has  two  adversaries  to  contend  against. 

1.  Philip. —  The  captain. —  The  phalanx. —  New  tactics. — 
Activity.  —  Bravery.  —  Love  of  glory.  —  Insatiable 

ambition. —  His  first  respose . 52-55 

The  Politician. —  Internal  difficulties. —  How  he  dupes 
the  Greek  cities. —  Philip  and  Ulysses. —  An  excellent 
diplomatist. —  An  obstinate  contest  against  Athens  al¬ 
ways  disavowed. —  The  friend  of  peace. —  Variable 
manœuvres. —  Craft. —  He  throws  off  his  mask. —  He 
attacks  the  Athenian  maritime  forces  and  insular 
allies. —  The  guardian  of  the  coasts. —  The  avenger 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


491 


of  the  outraged  gods. —  How  lie  rewards  himself  for 
his  pietjr. —  Checks. —  Tenacity  and  versatility. —  The 
great  means:  —  the  mule  laden  with  gold. —  He  se¬ 
duces  traitors  and  then  discards  them. —  He  hates 
and  esteems  Athens. —  His  vices,  like  his  virtues, 

serve  to  aggrandize  him . 55-63 

II.  The  Athenians. —  The  Greeks  divided. —  Distrusts 
and  spites. —  The  Roman’s  fatherland. — Weakness  of 
national  sentiment  in  Greece. —  Selfish  isolation. — 
Greece  in  the  face  of  the  barbarians  and  the  Mace¬ 
donian .  63-65 

The  Athenians  careless  and  tickle. —  A  taking  exor¬ 
dium. —  A  scandalous  and  mad  laughter  before  the 
Areopagus. —  Newsmongers. —  The  credulous. — Vol¬ 
untarily  deluded. —  How  they  console  themselves  for 
the  progress  of  the  invader. —  Demosthenes’  cries  of 
alarm. —  The  water-drinking  counsellor. —  The  agree¬ 
able  counsellor. —  War  of  decrees. —  Make  haste  to¬ 
day! —  Words  and  actions. —  Their  love  of  glory  re¬ 
mains  sterile. —  Citizens  devoted  by  proxy.  .  .  65-70 

The  Athenians  of  Pericles;  of  Demosthenes. —  Enjoy¬ 
ments  of  life  at  Athens. —  [A  lesson  on  morality  by 
the  comic  poet  Alexis.]  — War  against  the  generals. — 
Election  of  magistrates. —  Socrates, #  Montesquieu. — 

A  cavalry  officer. —  Metamorphoses  of  Midias. —  The 
Athenians  play  into  Philip’s  hands. —  The  pugilism 
of  the  barbarians. —  Nothing  to  the  purpose. —  The 
Panathenæa  and  preparations  for  war. —  Each  de¬ 
pends  upon  his  neighbor. —  Nothing  regulated,  noth¬ 
ing  consecutive. —  Advantages  of  Philip’s  autocracy. — 

Unity  of  plans  and  actions . 70-76 

Athenian  patriotism. —  Alcibiades. —  An  epidemic. —  A 
Spartan  mother. —  Artlunius  of  Zelia. —  Venality. — 
Athenian  feelings  toward  traitors. —  How  Philip  en¬ 
ticed  Greek  cupidity. —  The  banquet  of  Caranus. — 

To  each  one  his  wages. —  Shameful  treason,  de- 


492 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

spised  by  Philip,  stigmatized  by  Demosthenes. —  The 
mercenary  orators  deciy  Athens  when  with  the  prince, 
and  praise  the  prince  when  in  Athens. —  Official  phan¬ 
tasmagorias. —  Athens  cries  out  treason  and  is  the 
first  to  betray  herself. — Where  true  power  rests. — 
Demosthenes’  mission . 76-82 

CHAPTER  III. 

DEMOSTHENES - THE  MAN - THE  CITIZEN. 

I.  The  man. — Foresight  justified. — Demosthenes’  grand¬ 
mother. —  Studious  vigils  and  legendary  exercises. — 

The  gilded  youth  of  Athens. — The  life  of  a  prosper¬ 
ous  and  happy  family. —  Edifying  concession. —  De¬ 
mosthenes  reproached  with  effeminate  manners. — The 
régime  of  water. —  A  cautious  voluptuary,  Demos¬ 
thenes  qualified  and  restrained  himself. — Æschines 
and  Philinte. —  Animadversions  which  are  praises.  83-89 
Did  Demosthenes  love  money? — Weakness  and  relative 
integrity  —  Eloquence  often  venal  at  Athens. —  An 
improbable  scruple  of  Philip. —  Power  of  incorrupt¬ 
ible  men. —  How  Demosthenes  conquered  Philip.  89-93 
Demosthenes  reproached  with  timidity. —  Haughty  lan¬ 
guage  of  Hegesippus. — True  courage  according  to 
Thucydides. —  The  financier  Blepæus. —  Demosthenes 
naturally  nervous  and  sensitive. —  The  Cithæron. — 
Firmness  and  infirmities. — Alcibiades  at  the  tribune; 
an  opportune  diversion. —  Demosthenes  apologizes  for 

his  timidity. —  Civil  courage . 93-97 

The  soldier  of  Chæronea. — Extenuating  circumstances. — 
Proofs  of  pardon. —  Revenge  through  eloquence. —  , 
An  illiterate  accused. —  Antiquity  indulgent  to  the 
infirmities  of  Nature. —  Incorrigibles. —  A  son  who 
strikes  his  father  by  virtue  of  heredity. —  Cowardice 
often  involuntary  and  excusable  (Aristotle). —  Un¬ 
healthy  passions  and  intemperances. —  [A  case  of  con- 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


493 


science  submitted  to  the  oracle].- —  Physical  constitu¬ 
tion  and  will. —  Liberty  imperfectly  understood  by 
the  ancients. —  Man  and  the  animal. —  Socrates  and 
Zopyrus. —  Demosthenes  might  have  been  able  and 
ought  to  have  conquered  his  original  nature.  .  97-107 

Demosthenes  in  exile. —  Plutarch’s  reproach. —  Filial 
submission  to  his  country. —  The  fugitive  in  the 
temple  of  Neptune. —  Religious  end. —  Bitter  senti¬ 
ments. —  A  good  citizen  depicted  by  himself.  .  107-110 

II.  The  Citizen. —  Devotion  to  the  state. —  Hired  ora¬ 
tors. —  Alliances  and  coalitions. —  Each  at  home;  iso¬ 
lated  and  successive  endeavors. —  The  great  cities 
profit  by  the  weakness  of  rival  towns. —  The  alliance 
with  Thebes. —  The  patriotic  activity  of  Demosthenes 
embraced  the  whole  state. —  He  confronts  Philip. — 

He  is  the  soul  of  the  Republic. —  [Reasons  for  the 
division  of  public  authority  at  Athens]. —  He  arouses 
Greece  against  Alexander. —  Demosthenes  at  Olym¬ 
pia. —  [Shallow  illusions  of  Isocrates]. —  Plutarch’s 
parallel  between  Demosthenes  and  Cicero. —  An  out¬ 
law. — Often  accused;  acquitted  with  éclat. — [Contra¬ 
dictions  between  the  laws  and  decrees  of  Athens].  110-117 


CHAPTER  IY. 

DEMOSTHENES - THE  STATESMAN. 

I.  Political  sagacity. —  Leptines’  law. —  Short-sighted 
economists. —  Powerful  armies  on  paper. —  Good  sense 
the  master  of  human  life. —  Strong  intellect  capable 
of  controlling  passion. — Why  Athens  should  have 
aided  Byzantium,  Megalopolis,  Rhodes. —  The  interest 
of  the  state,  the  decisive  rule  of  Demosthenes. —  He 
commands  an  alliance  with  the  Great  King. — Affairs 
of  the  Chersonesus;  to  condemn  Diopithes  would  be 
impolitic  and  inequitable . 118-125 


494 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

II.  Opportunism. —  Theophrastus. —  Apologetic  letter  to 

Lentulus. —  The  pilot  of  the  state. —  Aiming  at  unity 
of  object,  not  language. —  Origin  of  theatrical 
grants. — After  attacking  the  tlieoricon,  Demosthenes 
justifies  it;  for  what  reason?  —  Mutual  murmurs -of* 
the  rich  and  the  poor. —  Poverty,  an  enviable  sinecure 
at  Athens. —  Necessity  of  consolidating  the  social 
structure.  . 125-129 

Versatility  among  the  Greeks. —  Opportunism  notable 
in  Demosthenes,  an  obstinate  nature. —  The  orator 
of  the  Philippics  pleads  in  favor  of  peace. — Amphic¬ 
tyonie  intrigues. — Avoiding  a  sacred  league  against 
Athens. —  [Opportunism  in  religious  law]. — Apology 
of  deserters. —  [Confidence  in  Atticus]. —  Demosthenes 
many  colored. —  Opportune  policy  of  the  Roman  Sen¬ 
ate;  Porsenna  of  the  patrician  order,  revenges  its 
fear. —  Commentary  on  Titus  Livius  by  Camille  Des¬ 
moulins;  an  outburst  of  liberalism.  .  .  .  129-134 

III.  Obstacles  at  Home. — Demosthenes  and  modern  states¬ 

men. —  Traitors,  indifferent  and  honorable  classes. — 
Phocion,  the  chopper  of  Demosthenes’  allocutions. — 
Vices  of  the  financial  and  military  organization  of 
Athens. —  Apportionment  of  taxes. —  The  law  of  ex¬ 
change  ( Antidosis ). —  Abuse  and  reform  of  the  trier- 
archy. —  Attempts  at  seduction  and  threats. —  Demos¬ 
thenes  wished  to  convert  the  munificence  of  the  state 
into  compensatory  salaries  for  public  services.  — 
Regular  pay  and  permanent  armies. — The  mercena¬ 
ries. —  Vices  of  Grecian  brmanda^e.  •  .  .  134-141 

The  social  question  at  Athens. —  Essence  of  democratic 
government  (Aristotle).' — Course  to  be  followed  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  poor;  their  ambition  compared  to  that  of 
the  rich. —  Organization  of  property  rights;  Plato’s 
radical  solution. —  Phaleas  of  Chalcedon. —  Equality 
of  property. —  Controlling  covetousness  of  more 
importance  than  equalizing  wealth. —  How  democ- 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


495 


racies  perish. —  Obligations  of  the  state  toward  the 
greatest  number,  according  to  Demosthenes. —  Recip¬ 
rocal  duties  of  the  rich  and  poor.  [Bossuet’s  sermon; 
charity  ought  to  justify  Providence.]  —  Political  con¬ 
ception  of  Demosthenes. . 141-145 

IV.  Demosthenes  as  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. —  Clear¬ 
sighted  statesmanship. —  Distrust  is  the  rampart  of 
free  cities.  —  [An  oath  without  artifice.]  —  Why 
Philip  dreaded  the  Athenian  democracy.  —  What  is 
the  absolute  incitement  of  Athens. —  Demosthenes 
judged  by  Philip  (Lucian). —  Philip  triumphs  over 
Demosthenes  and  insults  him  on  the  battle-field  of 

Chæronea.  . 145-149 

Doubts  raised  on  Demosthenes’  political  sagacity;  was 
he  ignorant  of  the  secret  of  Macedonian  power? — 
Every  structure  that  reposes  on  iniquity  is  ruinous. — 

The  moralist  and  the  statesman. —  A  political  maxim 
of  Demosthenes  turned  against  himself. —  Answer  to 
these  critics;  the  weakness  pointed  out  by  Demosthe¬ 
nes  was  real,  and  victory  possible. —  Consecutive  study 
of  Hellenic  and  foreign  affairs. —  On  certain  points 
the  orator  has  feigned  blindness. — Why  he  traduces 
or  calumniates  Philip. —  Eloquence  at  the  Pnyx  and 
in  the  Council. —  An  oratorical  caricature. —  The  ora¬ 
tor  himself  revealed  his  tactics . 149-155 

Was  Demosthenes  right  in  counselling  resistance  to  the 
invader?  Polybius  blamed  him  for  it. —  Mably  sus¬ 
tains  Polybius  and  pronounces  Demosthenes  a  con¬ 
temptible  politician. —  Mably  refuted  by  himself. — 

An  eternal  contradiction. —  A  page  from  M.  Cousin. 

— Is  Demosthenes  culpable  for  not  anticipating  the 
evolutions  of  humanity?  —  Present  duty  and  the 
Philosophy  of  the  future. —  Political  ethics  of  Aris¬ 
tophanes’  Diceopolis. —  Wars  of  conquest  and  wars  for 
independence. — .  A  line  from  Corneille.  .  .  155-164 

M.  de  Lamartine,  the  Marseillaise  of  the  Peace  (1841). — 


496 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Fatherland  and  universal  fraternity. — Fénelon  prefers 
Atticus  to  Cato  and  to  Demosthenes. —  The  duties  of 
the  prince  and  of  private  persons. —  In  a  democracy 
the  duties  of  the  sovereign  are  imposed  upon  the  na¬ 
tion. —  Eulogy  on  Leosthenes  (Hyperides). —  Athens 
rewarded  Demosthenes. —  The  two  crowns.  .  164-166 

CHAPTER  V. 

ANALYSIS  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  ELEMENTS  AND  CHARACTERISTICS 

of  Demosthenes’  eloquence. 

I.  Demosthenes’  eloquence  more  modern  than  Cicero’s. 

—  Luminous  precision. —  Brevity  which  goes  straight 
to  the  point. —  A  reprimand  must  avoid  tedium. — 
Simplicity  of  exordiums  and  perorations. —  [Conclud¬ 
ing  words  of  two  Pindaric  odes.]  —  Improvisation; 
why  Demosthenes  did  not  succeed  in  it. —  An  imagi¬ 
nation  more  vigorous  than  prompt. —  His  attitude 
at  the  forum. —  Power  of  improvisation. —  To  ignore 
it  is  a  grave  fault;  especially  in  an  Athenian  orator. 

—  Demades  and  Æschines  as  improvisers. —  Writings 
remain . 167-176 

Repetitions  in  Attic  eloquence;  various  reasons  which 
justify  them;  why  they  are  practiced  by  the  orator 
and  well  received  by  the  audience. —  The  Athenians 
prefer  beauty  to  novelty. —  Dangers  of  originality  at 
Athens. —  Every  superiority  is  suspected  of  tyranny. 

—  Isocrates’  opinion  on  the  relative  merit  of  the 
thinker  and  the  writer . 176-183 

II.  Revisions. —  Fénelon,  Bossuet,  Bourdaloue,  Massil¬ 
lon. —  Demosthenes  is  justified  for  haying  written  the 
Oratio  in  Midiam. —  The  sonnet  of  Orontes  and  the 
panegyric  on  Athens. —  Criticisms  addressed  to  labored 
compositions. — A  good  guaranty  for  literary  propriety. 

—  Compositions  intended  to  be  read;  orations  for  ac¬ 
tion. —  Proofs  of  revising  among  the  Attics. —  Antici¬ 
pated  refutations.  . 183-185 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


497 


How  are  we  to  reconcile  the  artistic  preconceptions  of 
Demosthenes  with  Fénelon’s  eulogy?  —  Demosthenes, 
a  consummate  artist,  remains  simple  and  natural. — 

He  had  to  please  the  Athenians  in  order  to  save  them. 

—  Specimens  of  convincing  argument  in  orations  not 
exclusively  political. —  Episodes  of  Greek  tragedy. — 
Digressions  in  civil  pleas  and  mixed  orations. —  Dif¬ 
ferent  conditions  of  the  tribune  and  bar, —  What  dis¬ 
courses  realize  the  triumph  of  eloquence?  .  185-190 

Omission  of  evidence  in  the  case. —  Evidence  taken  to 
give  rest  to  the  tribunal  and  orator. —  Civil  pleaders 
furnished  with  briefs. —  Demosthenes  suppresses  tech¬ 
nical  documents  in  which  he  has  not  done  oratorical 
work. —  Literary  disinterestedness  of  Crassus. —  De¬ 
mosthenes  neglects  reality  for  lasting  beauties.  190-192 
III.  General  developments. —  Advantages  and  inconve¬ 
niences  of  this  method. —  Difficulty  of  classing  the 
Olynthiacs. —  Taste  of  Attic  eloquence  for  political  or 
moral  theses. —  Influence  of  the  philosophic  turn  of 
mind. —  The  first  oration  Against  Aristogiton ;  simi¬ 
lar  premises  boldly  avowed. —  Even  in  general  themes 
Demosthenes  remains  a  precise  orator  and  rigorous 
logician. —  Eloquence  varied  in  its  appliances,  but 
uniform  through  its  common  fund  of  ideas  and  senti¬ 
ments. —  [Examples  of  general  theses]. —  Technical 
discussions  united  to  general  considerations. —  Plead¬ 
ing  On  the  Embassy. —  A  speech  on  public  affairs  [Oft 
the  Navy  Boards]. —  Elevation  of  Demosthenes’  elo¬ 
quence  .  .  . 192-198 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ANALYSIS  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  ELEMENTS  AND  CHARACTERISTICS 
of  Demosthenes’  eloquence. — (continued.) 

I.  Mould  of  Demosthenes'  argumentation. —  Marshal  de 
Gramont.  —  Not  words,  but  deeds.  —  History’s  les- 


498 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


sons. —  Discerning  genius. —  Dialectic  vigor. — What 
the  political  orator  owes  to  the  logographer. —  An 
embarrassing  dilemma. —  Happy  retorts.  —  Refuta¬ 
tions  in  form. —  Logic  and  wit .  199-206 

Identity  of  resources. —  The  orations  of  Æschines  and 
Demosthenes  compared.  —  Sacred  formularies  and 
proceedings. —  Challenges. —  Torture. —  To  death  !  — 

The  accused  refused  the  liberty  of  speech.  .  206-210 

Dramatic  cast  of  address. —  Simple  question  to  Aristode- 
mus. —  Scenes  at  the  Agora;  incidents  at  the  trib¬ 
une. — Stormy  sessions. — The  Attic  hive. —  An  exam¬ 
ple  to  follow. . 210-214 

II.  Pathos. —  Demosthenes  and  Thucydides. —  Deep  medi¬ 
tation  and  passion. —  The  law  of  Athenian  courts 
prohibited  pathetic  appeals. —  The  Greeks  distrust 
their  own  sensibility. —  Homer’s  heroes. —  The  Cap¬ 
ture  of  Miletus  by  Phrynichus. — Custom  stronger  than 
law. —  Petitions  and  tears  of  the  accused. —  The  chil¬ 
dren  of  Midias. —  Attic  tradition  in  Hyperides. — 
Pathetic  eloquence,  being  illegal,  is  dissimulated. — 

In  what  respect  the  pathos  of  Æschines  differed  from 
that  of  Demosthenes. —  Racine  and  Corneille. —  The 
transports  of  Isocrates. —  Personifications  in  Æschines 
and  Demosthenes. —  A  picture  of  Phocis  in  ruins. — 
Usual  sources  of  the  pathetic  in  Demosthenes. — 

Rough  eloquence . 214-219 

Demosthenes  exhibits  wit. —  The  shadow  of  an  ass. —  In¬ 
genious  delicacy  of  style. —  [Delicacy  of  the  Attic 
language]. —  A  lesson  in  wit  given  to  Æschines. — 
Demosthenes  not  successful  in  pleasantries. —  Sallies 
of  Alcestes. —  Sharp  sayings  less  agreeable  than  biting 
ones. —  Euphemisms  at  Athens.  —  How  Demosthenes 
praises  Philip. —  Indignant  and  virulent  irony. —  A 
clerk  putting  on  airs.  —  Irony  among  the  trage¬ 
dians.  —  Irony  on  the  lips  of  Demosthenes  while 
dying . 219-226 


499 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

/ 

III.  Beauties  of  style. — Vigorous  conciseness. —  Speaking 
pictures. —  Energy  was  familiar  to  the  Attics  of  the 
Macedonian  epoch. —  Poetic  expressions;  Cicero;  Aris¬ 
totle;  scruples  of  Voltaire. — Picturesque  relief. — 

The  Greek  language  an  artistic  pencil, —  Emblazoned 
figures  of  speech;  censured  by  Æschines;  excused  by 
Cicero. —  Conclusions  of  Pliny  the  Younger  and  of 
Lupercus  on  the  sublimity  of  style  in  Pliny  the 
Younger. —  Antithesis. —  Contrasts  and  parallels.  — 

A  citation .  226-281 

IV.  Plans. — Method  among  the  ancients  and  moderns. — 
Why  Demosthenes’  plans  are  sometimes  difficult  to 
comprehend. —  A  wise  disposition  calculated  for  the 
effect  to  be  produced. —  The  curve  in  Greek  archi¬ 
tecture. —  The  great  compositions  of  the  deliberative 
nature  compared  as  to  plans  and  achievements  with 
the  productions  of  the  bar. —  Clearness  of  Æschines’ 
composition. —  Unrestrained  moments  of  Demosthe¬ 
nes. — [Pretended  improvisations]. — Wherein  consists, 
in  Demosthenes,  the  true  unity  of  his  productions. — 

The  dispersed  order  of  military  tactics. —  Diversions 
and  detached  pieces . •  .  .  231-238 

Action. —  The  comedian  Satyrus. — Æschines  criticises 
the  vehement  action  of  Demosthenes.  The  two  kinds 
of  eloquence  described  by  Buffon. —  Apostrophe  to 
the  heroes  of  Marathon. — Why  this  fragment  has  not 
been  detached  from  its  frame. —  Olympian  Demos¬ 
thenes  not  after  the  fashion  of  Pericles. —  Impressions 
of  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  from  reading  a  page  of 
Isocrates  or  Demosthenes .  238-246 

V.  Precautions  and  oratorical  customs. —  Truth,  “with 
a  loose  vein.” — Eulogy  on  absent  virtues. —  Athens 
unconscious  of  envy:  the  modesty  of  the  ancients; 
of  the  moderns. —  Æneas,  Cicero,  Isocrates. —  The  ora¬ 
tion  On  the  Crown  an  adroit  apology. —  Demosthenes 
absolved  of  his  renown. —  [A  feature  of  manners].  246-250 


500  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Courageous  frankness. —  Euphræus. —  Sycophant  dema¬ 
gogues. —  Severe  reprimands. —  Deceptive  obesity. — 

The  Athenian  people  live  at  the  mercy  of  unworthy 
masters,  their  own  work. — A  scene  from  the  Knights. — 

The  spongers  of  good  people. — Aristophanes  in  hatred 
of  the  demagogues,  becomes  a  corrupting  dema¬ 
gogue. —  A  compliant  sovereign. —  Impertinences  of 
Cleon,  of  Stratocles. —  The  lion’s  court.  .  .  250-255 

VI.  National  character  and  the  government  of  Athens 
well  understood  by  Demosthenes. —  Emulation  of 
ancestry. —  Hereditary  generosity  of  Athens  in  the 
midst  of  universal  egotism. —  Singular  judgment  of 
Theophrastus. —  Reply  to  the  panegyrists  on  the 
Lacedaemonian  constitution. —  Originality  of  the  Athe¬ 
nian  constitution. — *  Abuse  does  not  forbid  use. —  On 
the  competency  of  majorities:  Plato,  Aristotle,  guest 
and  cook. —  The  greatest  crime  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Greeks. —  A  flattered  picture  of  the  Athenians. — 
Tyrannical  hegemony. —  Supremacy  and  recurring 
violences  in  the  large  cities. — The  passion  of  equality 
prepared  the  way  for  the  destruction  of  liberty. — The 
noble  son  and  the  usurping  slave. — Why  a  void  oc¬ 
curs  around  Athens.  .  255-263 

CHAPTER  VII. 

ORATORICAL  CONTESTS  IN  POLITICAL  DEBATES  AT  ATHENS. 

I.  Historical  criticism. —  Grandeur  of  the  political  de¬ 
bates  between  Demosthenes  and  Æschines. —  Artistic 
side. —  Success  of  a  dichoreus  in  the  forum. — Pélisson 
and  Socrates. —  Pleaders  not  favored  by  Nature. —  . 
Exhibitions  of  eloquence;  feasts  of  intellect. —  Griev¬ 
ous  distractions  of  Athenian  tribunals.  .  .  264-269 

He  who  cannot  please  cannot  be  right. —  An  obligation 
imposed  upon  Demosthenes  of  being  artistic  in  his  fine 
language. —  Antagonistic  virtue  at  the  games,  at  the 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


501 


theater  and  at  the  tribune. —  Orators  and  athletes. — 

A  fundamental  idea. —  Passion  for  glory;  Timanthes, 
Niceratus. —  Crowns  awarded  at  the  theater.  .  269-272 

II.  Oratorical  contests. —  For  what  purpose  the  adver¬ 

saries  spend  their  time  in  order  to  engage  in  con¬ 
tests. —  Excuses  and  pretexts. —  Demosthenes  writes 
the  Oration  in  Midiam,  and  at  the  same  time  comes 
to  an  agreement  with  the  enemy. — Assaults  by  strata¬ 
gem. —  Exchange  of  epithets. —  Panurge. —  [The  wish 
of  Strepsiades]. —  Every  weapon  is  good  that  inflicts 
wounds .  272-276 

Speaking  well,  often  and  long. —  [The  motion  for  an 
Hour- glass,  August  3,  1789].  Jealous  malignity. — 
Æschines’  voice. —  Mirabeau. —  Orators  and  coin- 
medians. —  Demosthenes  pleads  against  Æschines1 
voice. —  A  tournament  of  eloquence  before  Philip.  276-282 

III.  Æschines  master  of  rhetoric  at  the  tribune. —  Inci¬ 
dents  of  literary,  artistic  and  theatrical  history. — 
Poets  and  legends. —  The  archives  of  the  Greeks. — 

The  address  to  the  court;  a  work  of  art. —  Coarse  in¬ 
vectives  and  philosophic  ethics. —  Cicero  a  student  of 
the  Greeks .  282-286 

Artistic  care  excluded  cruelty. —  Athens  a  humane 
city. — Result  of  the  orations  On  the  Embassy  and  On 
the  Crown. —  Æschines  in  exile. —  Laharpe’s  astonish¬ 
ment. —  An  artistic  queen. —  Advantages  of  historical 
criticism .  286-289 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

INVECTIVE  IN  GREEK  ELOQUENCE. 

I.  Freedom  of  abuse  among  the  ancients. —  The  comic 
pamphlets  of  Aristophanes. —  A  cock  fight. —  Intoxi¬ 
cation  of  anger  and  hatred .  290-291 

Causes  of  invective  in  Greek  eloquence. — (First). —  The 
want  of  moral  delicacy  among  the  ancients. —  Pardon 


502  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


for  vituperation. —  Rejoicing  over  vengeance. —  The 
most  honorable  epitaph. —  The  baton  corrective  of 
satire. —  The  Metelli. —  The  Chevalier  de  Rohan. — 
Ulysses’  scepter. —  Among  kings. —  [An  article  from 
the  law  of  the  XII  Tables]. —  (Second)  —  Defama¬ 
tion  a  form  and  privilege  of  democratic  govern¬ 
ment  at  Athens. —  The  feudal  Greece  of  the  Iliad. — 
Thersites. —  (Third)  —  The  Greeks  falsifiers  and  fond 
of  scandal. —  A  scene  from  the  Ajax  of  Sophocles. — 
(Fourth)  —  Invective  a  useful  diversion. —  Mixed  Au¬ 
dience .  291-297 

(Fifth)  —  The  public  ministry  extended  to  the  entire 
public. —  Tribunal  ignorant  and  prejudiced. —  Spites 
and  revenges  of  trifling  people. —  Collectors  in  the 
wasp’s  nest. — (Sixth)  —  The  plaintiff  pleading  his  own 
cause  does  not  smother  his  resentments. —  The  Athe¬ 
nian  logographer  and  the  modern  advocate. —  De¬ 
faming  by  invective  and  defaming  by  law. —  Anony¬ 
mous  calumnies. —  (Seventh)  —  Swaying  the  judge 
instead  of  enlightening  him. —  Swift  and  Wood. — 

The  laic  of  unworthiness. —  To  vilify  an  adversary  is 
to  convict  him. —  Government  of  family  and  of  state. — 
Socratic  prejudice,  reviewed  by  Æschines.  .  297-303 

II.  Invective  in  civil  suits. —  The  sages  themselves  make 
use  of  it  at  the  tribune. — What  rendered  these  vio¬ 
lences  endurable. —  Picture  of  Aristogiton. —  [Origi¬ 
nal  method  of  disposing  of  his  parents]. — Viper,  scor¬ 
pion  and  tarantula. —  Public  accusation  against  Tim- 
archus. —  Demosthenes  and  the  seditious  tribunes  of 
Titus  Livius. —  [Nicias  and  the  informers]. —  Why 
the  Oratio  in  Midiam  should  never  have  been  writ¬ 
ten.  —  Invective  in  the  oration  against  Ctesiphon. 
Edifying  catalogue. — You  are  angry,  therefore  you 

are  wrong. —  Gall  and  venom  of  Æschines.  .  303-315 

III.  Demosthenes  no  friend  of  invective. — Feminine  re¬ 
sentments. —  A  stinging  cuff. —  Demosthenes,  when 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


503 


provoked,  lias  a  right  to  defend  himself; —  Mocked 
from  the  cradle. —  Demosthenes’  ancestors. —  Æschi- 
nes’  family  under  the  lash  of  Demosthenes. —  Æschi- 
nes’  fortune  compared  with  that  of  Demosthenes.  315-321 
Demosthenes’  personal  resentments. —  Private  and  patri¬ 
otic  enmity. —  The  quarry. —  Signal  ingratitude. — 

Is  Æschines  the  guest  or  the  paid  servant  of  Alex¬ 
ander? —  Æschines’  true  colleagues. —  Seized  by  the 
throat  by  the  consciousness  of  his  misdeeds.  .  321-325 

IV.  The  Athenian  pamphleteer  compelled  to  strike 
hard. —  The  Just  of  Aristophanes  a  convert  to  univer¬ 
sal  depravity.  —  Ancient  patience;  Phocion;  Peri¬ 
cles. —  An  emperor  a  man  of  talent. —  An  opinion  of 
the  Duke  de  Montausier.  —  Disparagement  of  the 
wretched  condition  of  certain  persons. —  The  senate  of 

Capua.  .  .  . .  325-329 

Be  human!  be  pitiless!  —  Why  the  audience  did  not  un¬ 
derstand  the  Athenian  pamphleteer  literally. —  [An¬ 
tony  a  prudent  lawer]. —  Black  or  white. —  Hatred 
avowed  against  Æschines. —  Æschines  dares  not  de- 
clare  his  own. —  A  page  of  Æschines  as  eloquent  as 


deceit  can  be. —  Demosthenes’  reply. —  [Invective  in 
Roman  literature] .  329-337 


CHAPTER  IX. 

GREEK  ELOQUENCE  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  TRUTH  AND  MORALITY. 

I.  Persistence  of  the  genius  of  races. —  Homer’s  Greeks. — 
Falsehoods  upon  falsehoods. —  Double' physiognomy 
of  the  Odyssey. —  Useful  fictions,  agreeable  fictions. — 
Plato  and  hypocrisy  —  Themistocles. —  [Attic  wisdom 
and  Lacedaemonian  apothegms.]  —  Illusive  proce¬ 
dures,  diversions,  short  histories,  oracles. —  The  art 
of  enlarging  and  diminishing  objects. —  Simonides’ 
mules. —  Alcibiades  and  Midias. —  How  art  discred¬ 
ited  itself.  .  338-343 


504  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


II.  Argument  of  mutilated  persons. —  Ulysses  and  Pisis- 
tratus. —  Isocrates  in  open  act. —  The  natural  weapon 
of  the  accused. —  A  distinction  by  Francis  de  Sales. — 

The  theory  of  lying. —  Danger  of  scientific  analyses; 
too  disinterested. —  Aristotle  gives  an  inventory  with¬ 
out  values. —  Malice  of  the  Athenian  bar. —  Jugglers 
of  the  tribune. —  Logographers  sought  and  dishon¬ 
ored. —  Mercenaries  of  the  pen  and  pirates. —  Plato’s 
law. —  Falsehoods  of  Theopompus. —  [The  capitularies 
of  Charlemagne  and  the  Memorial  of  Saint-Helena.]  — 
Solemn  oaths  and  perjuries. —  An  instructive  distinc¬ 
tion. —  Two  associates. —  Judicial  and  political  elo¬ 
quence  closely  united  at  Athens:  (cf.  the  preface).  343-352 

III.  At  the  school  of  sophists. —  Probabilities  and  para¬ 
doxes. —  Feats  of  force. —  The  archives  of  Athens  and 
falsifiers. — •  Contradictions  and  retorts. — Where  is  the 
deceiver  ?  —  [Malpractices  charged  against  Demos¬ 
thenes;  affairs  of  state  and  money  matters.] — Im¬ 
postures  circumstantiated  by  means  of  lies. —  [A 
fault  of  accent;  a  little  comedy  of  Menander.]  — Pub¬ 
lic  notoriety. —  The  art  of  mock  praise  at  Rome. — 
Quintilian’s  code  of  false  narrations  and  theory  of 
colors. —  [Imaginative  tales  in  Cicero’s  orations].  352-358 

Romantic  episode  of  the  female  captive  of  Olynthus. — 
Æscliines  adorns  this  recital. —  The  art  of  rendering 
an  adversary  odious. —  Parade  of  false  testimony. — 
Whoever  wishes  to  prove  too  much  proves  nothing. — 
Eubulus  and  Ulpian. —  Moral  sense  of  the  Greeks 
comes  from  their  aesthetic  sense. —  Calumnies  brought 
down  to  facts. —  Effrontery  and  candor.  .  .  358-365 

IV.  Honorable  amend  in  Plutus. —  Rhetoric  in  the  face 
of  the  philosopher  of  the  Gorgias  and  the  poet  of  the 
Clouds. —  [An  illiterate  pedagogue.]  —  Orators  judged 
by  themselves. —  A  compromising  ally. —  Political 
friendships. —  Demosthenes  as  a  man  and  a  po¬ 
lemic. —  Genius  compels. —  Cato’s  motto  and  his  con- 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


505 


tradictors.  (Quintilian). —  Civic  virtue  distinguished 
from  private  virtue. —  Leptines’  adversary. —  Peri¬ 
cles,  Plutarch,  Aristotle. —  Demosthenes  and  Pho- 
cion. —  An  adopted  ancestor  of  Brutus.  .  .  365-371 

CHAPTER  X. 

I.  DEMOSTHENES  AS  A  MORALIST. - II.  RELATIONS  OF  JUSTICE  AND 

POLITICS. - III.  RELIGIOUS  SENTIMENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES. 

I. - DEMOSTHENES  AS  A  MORALIST. 

Was  Demosthenes  a  disciple  of  Plato?  —  Inspirations 
from-  Plato. —  New  Academ}r  and  Lyceum. —  [At  what 
school  was  the  perfect  orator  formed?]  —  Moral  grav¬ 
ity  of  Demosthenes’  eloquence. —  Fruit  of  meditation 
upon  human  vicissitudes. —  The  benefit  of  adversity: 
Elevation  of  thought. —  The  necessity  of  freemen;  the 
necessity  of  the  slave. —  Demosthenes  achieved  the 
task  of  which  Aristotle,  the  moralist,  seems  to  have 
despaired. —  Plato’s  prophecy  half  disproved.  372-378 

II. - RELATIONS  BETWEEN  JUSTICE  AND  POLITICS. 

Justice,  an  angular  stone. — Reconciling  the  useful  and  the 
honorable. — The  refuse  basket.  (Socrates). —  Hobbes. 

—  Justice  resides  in  the  defense  of  the  oppressed. — 
Public  opinion.  —  Civil  justice;  Hellenic  justice. — 
Might  makes  right. —  Foreign  policy  of  Athens  in 
Thucydides  and  Demosthenes. —  A  congress.  .  378-383 

Is  there  a  legitimate  distinction  between  social  and  in¬ 
ternational  justice?  [Two  chapters  from  Balzac’s 
Prince .]  —  Justice  of  universal  peace.  —  There  are 
judges  at  Berlin. —  In  what  Demosthenes  failed. —  So¬ 
cial  contract  of  the  human  family .  383-386 

The  sentiment  of  right  weak  in  Greece. —  The  violences 
of  Athens  judged  by  Isocrates.  —  Eternal  contradic¬ 
tion:  Helvetius,  Kant,  Leibnitz,  approve  God  but  do 


506 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


not  imitate  him. —  [A  philosopher  -  king  in  his 
writings.]  —  Plato’s  Republic.  —  His  method  com¬ 
pared  with  that  of  the  Stagirite. —  How  Aristotle’s 
mind  looks  upon  the  gravest  questions. —  Slavery  be¬ 
fore  ancient  philosophy. —  Speculative  theorists  and 
statesmen . -  .  386-392 

Difference  between  ancient  and  modern  views  regarding 
moral  obligations. — Why  Cicero's  De  Officiis  is  a 
treatise  on  social  morality. —  Religious  and  civil  du¬ 
ties  confounded  in  the  ancient  city. —  Saint  Louis  and 
the  treaty  of  Abbeville. —  Excellence  and  character 
of  political  justice. —  An  entirely  political  conception 
of  justice  in  Plato. —  Traces  of  the  predominance  of 
social  predispositions  in  ancient  legislation. —  Our  mil¬ 
itary  justice. —  Law  of  Pittacus  concerning  crimes 
committed  during  intoxication.  ....  392-396 

Essential  unity  and  absolute  character  of  morality. — 
Comparative  rank  of  duties. — The  statesman’s  duty. 

—  Dangers  of  monarchical  powers. —  The  light  of 
liberty  purifies.  —  Why  Demosthenes  for  a  moment 
lost  sight  of  moral  law. —  [Pernicious  influence  of 
war.]  —  Sovereign  law.  .  396-398 

III. - RELIGIOUS  SENTIMENT  IN  DEMOSTHENES. 

Doubts  about  Providence  arising  in  moments  of  anger. 

—  Demosthenes’  sentiments  on  fortune.  —  Identical 
objection  of  M.  de  Meaux  and  Demosthenes. —  Pro¬ 
fession  of  faith  to  the  Corinthians  and  Melians. — 
Power  is  of  divine  right. — Indecision  of  Demosthenes’ 
mind  on  questions  of  religious  morality. —  Pagan 
theology  difficult  to  harmonize  with  good  sense  and 
moral  sense. —  How  pagan  dogmas  lead  to  a  belief  in 
fortune .  398-404 

Demosthenes  sincerely  religious. —  The  priestess  Theoris. 

—  A  perfidious  sophism  refuted. —  Did  Demosthenes 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


507 


believe  in  oracles  and  auguries?  —  A  premeditated 
dream. —  [An  apparition  of  Minerva; — the  family 

compact].  .  404-407 

Divination. —  Epimenides  of  Crete. —  Demosthenes  a  pu¬ 
pil  of  Thucydides. —  [Various  prodigies.]  —  Religious 
sentiment  in  art;  in  public  and  private  life;  in  the 
eloquence  of  the  ancients. —  Why  Demosthenes  was 
touched  with  it. —  Destiny  and  liberty.  .  .  407-411 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  TRIAL  ON  THE  CROWN. 

I. - DEMOSTHENES'  ACCUSER. 

Political  passions  at  Athens  after  Chæronea. —  Interest 

♦ 

and  grandeur  of  the  debate. —  Ctesiphon’s  accuser  is 
condemned  beforehand  to  the  reproach  of  disloyal 
malignity. —  [Subject  of  the  trial.]  —  The  moment 
chosen  by  Æschines  to  attack  Demosthenes. —  The  mod¬ 
ern  Thersites. — “  Littleness  of  soul  ”  in  Æschines. — 

Real  and  oratorical  sentiments. —  [Æschines’  decla¬ 
rations  honorable  to  his  adversary.]  —  Improbable  and 
contradictory  imputations . 412-417 

Æschines  wanting  in  sincerity. —  [Hermogenes’  testi¬ 
mony. —  Demosthenes  and  Paulus  Æmilius.]  —  Source 
of  eloquence  in  the  two  rivals. —  The  subject  pro¬ 
duced  eloquence. —  A  political  metamorphosis. —  [Dif¬ 
ficult  apology.]  —  Æschines  yielded  to  the  torrent. — 
Eulogy  of  ancestors  by  Æschines  and  Demosthenes. — 
Why  Demosthenes  bore  away  the  palm.  .  .  417-422 

II. - PIETY  TOWARD  THE  GODS,  AND  TOWARD  HIS  COUNTRY. 

Effect  of  great  disasters  on  popular  imagination. —  Eux- 
enippus’  dream.  —  Strong  religious  impressions. 
(Diodorus  and  Justin). —  Punishment  for  sacrilege. — 


508 


POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 


Philip  derived  advantages  from  the  moral  state  of 
Greece. — Æschines  aided  him  therein. —  Recollections 
of  maternal  education. —  The  tyrant  should  manifest 
his  piety.  (Aristotle). —  The  protectorate  of  religion. — 
Avowals  of  a  philanthropist. —  [The  courtesan  Rho¬ 
dope.] —  Æschines  and  Lucretius. —  Accusations  of 
Impiety  at  Athens. — Aspasia,  Phryne. —  Demosthenes’ 
entire  life  is  a  life  of  impiety. —  His  impiety  ruined 

his  country .  422-430 

His  oration  to  the  Amphictyonie  council.-- Religious 
wars  of  antiquity. —  [Roman  tolerance.] — Athens 
remains  apart  from  the  holy  league. —  Catastrophes 
provoked  by  Demosthenes’  sacrilege.  .  .  .  430-438 

Badly  adjusted  mask. —  Æschines  and  the  oracle. —  Æs¬ 
chines  sings  with  Philip  the  Pæan  which  celebrates 
the  destruction  of  Phocis. —  Knavish  or  depraved. — 

The  account  of  the  session  of  the  Amphictyonie  coun¬ 
cil  by  Æschines  justifies  Demosthenes’  accusations. — 
Æschines’  mandate. —  Socrates  the  sophist.  .  .  438-447 

Snares  and  deadly  engines;  glorification  of  Chæronea 
during  the  lifetime  of  Alexander. —  Phalecus  and  the 
fire  from  heaven. —  Demosthenes  evades  a  burning 
subject. —  Indulgent  sympathy  of  Athens  toward  the 
Phocidians: —  The  accused  becomes  the  accuser.  447-449 

III. - DEMOSTHENES  A  BAD  COUNSELLOR. 

Faith  of  the  Geeeks  in  predestination. —  [Destiny  an  ex¬ 
cellent  pilot.]  —  Appearances  condemn  Demosthe¬ 
nes. — A  woful  fatality  weighs  on  the  whole  world. — 
Various  causes  of  the  calamities  of  Greece. —  Patriotic 

concession  to  popular  prejudices .  449-454 

Contrast  between  the  destiny  of  Æschines  and  Demosthe¬ 
nes. —  Deceptions  and  bitterness. —  Tragic  figure. — 
[Prometheus]. —  In  what  Demosthenes  was  happy. — 
After  the  disaster .  454-458 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


509 


IV. - GRECIAN  ELOQUENCE  EXTINGUISHED  WITH  DEMOSTHENES. 

Attitude  of  Athens  in  the  face  of  its  conquerors. —  Two 
decrees;  uncle  and  nephew. —  Hymn  to  Demetrius. — 
What  is  lost  in  losing  liberty. —  Disappearance  of 
eloquence  and  Greek  genius.  —  The  orator  of  the 
Philippics  justified .  458-464 


CHAPTER  XII. 

POLITICAL,  MORAL  AND  LITERARY  CONCLUSION. 

I.  Essential  immutability  of  human  character. —  [The 

question  of  the  East  in  340  b.c.]  — Political  eloquence 
of  the  Macedonian  epoch,  and  of  the  French  revolu¬ 
tion. —  Patriotic,  moral  and  religious  impressions. — 
Constituent  assembly  and  convention. —  Character 
of  their  eloquence. —  Invective  in  Athens  and  the 
pamphlet  in  France. —  Athenian  eloquence  is  not 
murderous. —  [C.  Desmoulins;  license  of  the  Greek 
comedy  and  freedom  of  the  press]. —  Sceptics  and 
enthusiasts. —  Nothing  great  without  faith  .  .  465-472 

II.  The  Athens  of  Demosthenes  knew  neither  social  nor 

patriotic  passions. —  Political  and  social  progress  [a 
good  constitution  after  the  taste  of  the  Socratics]. — 
Ostracism,  the  law  of  humanity. —  The  citizen  very 
eminent  in  the  Athenian  and  in  the  modern  democ¬ 
racy. —  Riches,  social  danger. —  The  question  of  labor 
and  capital. —  The  grantees  of  the  mines.  (Hyperi- 
des). —  [Project  of  industrial  and  financial  associations 
between  private  persons  and  the  state] .  (Xenophon). — 
Superiorities  of  modern  democracy.  .  .  .  472-478 

III.  Moral  progress. —  Rule  for  correctly  judging  an  an¬ 
cient. —  Aristotle’s  summary. —  The  Athenians  more 
indulgent  than  the  moderns  toward  Demosthenes. — 
Effect  of  perspective. —  Demosthenes  is  admired  to¬ 
day  not  in  the  same  manner  but  more  warmly. — 


510  POLITICAL  ELOQUENCE  IN  GREECE. 

Not  by  the  narrow  view  of  ancient  criticism. —  Pro¬ 
gramme  of  a  letter  to  Philip. —  The  flute  of  T.  Grac¬ 
chus.  [The  theory  of  the  thumb]. —  Attic  and  modern 
simplicity. —  The  modern  tribune. —  Contempora¬ 

neous  political  eloquence. —  Fragile  and  imperishable 
beauties. —  Demosthenes  the  orator  and  statesman. — 
[Counsel  and  execution. —  Men  in  opposition  to,  and 
friends  to,  the  government.]  — The  genius  and  soul 
of  Demosthenes. — What  Athens  owes  to  him. —  How 
nations  die  away  or  become  renewed  .  .  .  .  478-488 


S 


. 


PA  <3  ISS,.  RX3 

Author  Bred  if,  L. 


>04846 


Demosthenes,  tr.  by 


M.J.  .MacMahon 


-“•■J'* - — . — •  1  . 

Chicago,  Griggs,  1881 

DATE  DUE 

iÿ.~r.ÜT?WS  NAME  | 

Feb.  19,  1 

951  743 

FEB  2'i'Sl 

/  »7v  / 

^  /  /; 

_<£&  a  hi”  1 

/ 

\  \  I 

£'«■5  4  o  | 

y  *  *  .  I 

/  /'  /■  .  1 

f 

>«7r 

\  7 

.  «  «  »  ♦  V  -  1  ’  44 

t  t  »  J  •  | 

c.t 

r:x 

XI 

T 

»**  r 

r 

*  T  '  ■»  i  r' 

;  **  V  5.  '-1  Hi  '<  J  «C  O 

*  I 

name 


à 


Boston  College  Library 

Chestnut  Hill  67,  Mass. 

' .. 

Books  make  kept  for  two  weeks  unless  a  shorter 
time  is  specified. 

Two  cents  a  day  is  charged  for  each  2-week  book 
kept  overtime;  25  cents  a  day  for  each  overnight 
book. 


If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  inquire  at  the 
delivery  desk  for  assistance. 


